PUBLIC OPINION.

Patea Mail, 23 December 1881, Page 3

PUBLIC OPINION.

Contributions, Letters, Inquiries and Answers thereto, are invited on Farming. Commerce, Politics, and matters of interest to the Patea district. Names of writers need not be Printed.

COUNTY MANAGEMENT.

Though not now a ratepayer of thisCounty, yet, as an old resident, I may be allowed to express my opinion on the question of County Councils versus Road Boards. In common with most I was heartily in favor of the abolition of provinces, and expected great good to result from the establishment of local government. When therefore the “Counties Act 1876 ” came into my hands, I studied that measure carefully, The result was disappointing. I could see no powers given or duties imposed which could not have been just as well discharged by the several Road Boards. I saw that by the co-existence of two local bodies in the same district, having jurisdiction in matters almost identical, a clashing of interests must inevitably result; and further, that a rating power for the support of a main line of road through a disturbed district, which should at that time (though not now) have belonged to, and been kept in repair by the General Government, while pressing heavily on the ratepayers, would, in a great measure, be squandered on an expensive and unnecessary management. These expectations, expressed at a crowded meeting in the Town Hall, Waverley, immediately before the first election of Councillors, have been abundantly realised, and hundreds of pounds have been spent on salaries which should have been expended on roads. The Road Boards could have done the work at little or no extra cost of management: for, as a general rule, whoever superintends the road work in the various highway districts has constantly to traverse the main road, in order to supervise the disirict roads, and he might just as well have the care of it. The only other work that this expensive, important, and aristocratic body has on its weary and overworked shoulders, is the Hospital, about the greatest waste of money of all, not to speak of graver disabilities. This building should never have had an existence. With the means of transit at hand, and in prospect, and with the knowledge that a much greater variety, not to say superiority, of medical talent existed at Wanganui, the Council acted with culpable, extravagance towards the ratepayers and unkindness to the sick and suffering, in calling into being such an institution. Hospitals should, in my opinion, be managed, not by local politicians (as a rule not likely to trouble themselves by attending to sick people), but rather by a committee of philantrophic men and women. Such a committee would probably not allow the playing of musical instruments, nor the noise of children in the next room to patients in extreme suffering. It is time this farce of double government ceased : time that Councils were stopped dancing while the ratepayers paid the piper, for now, after 5 years trial, they have been found to fail, and the verdict, of this County at least, is in favor of abolishing, as far as may be, such an effete and useless, not to say hurtful, institution. It is the duty of the members to give effect to the expressed wishes of their constituents or resign their seats, and it is the duty of each and every member to attend and express his views, and stand or fall by the consequences. I notice Mr Bridge was absent at the last meeting of the Council. I trust he will be present at the next one. He is pledged to, as far as possible under the existing law, make the Council a nonentity. On those grounds he was returned, otherwise ho would have exchanged places with Mr Aiken. John W. Kenah.