The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 288, 10 July 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1875.

“W* shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: Wo shall defer to no man justice or right.”

’ Now that the present Road Board have oihuiady -nJ ucbiiileiy refuser to ratify the promise made by their predecessors that a sum of public money—thirty pounds, if we mistake not —should be given in aid of the erection of the Waikanae bridge ; and as the bridge has been built on the faith of that promise being carried into effect, it is but right that the circumstances which have surrounded this matter from the beginning should b • made known, and form a subject of investigation at the annual meet ng of ratepayers to be held on Wednesday next. From what we can learn, the circnm stances are shortly these: —A sum of

money was voted by the last Board, supposed to be about oue third of the cost of the bridge, on the understanding that the work was to be prosecuted under the direction and supervision of their Engineer. Some I’rttle difficulty and‘delay were occasioned, and the bridge was not built until after the Board who voted the money went out of office. A few months since a committee was formed to undertake the work, and to collect the promised subscriptions, amongst which was that above alluded to. At first, the chairman of the Board unofficially gave his .opinion that such a grant could not be made; but, subsequently, on learning that an express resolution had been passed affirming the gift, Mr Hardy not only assented to the payment of the money, but, as we are informed, wrote a letter to that effect to one of the committee — Mr Hall, we believe, upon the faith of which guarantee a contract was entered into, and the work proceeded in due course. The fact of writing this letter, is now disputed by Mr. Hardy, although it was seen by two or three persons to whom it was shown at the time, and who, doubtless, are prepared to verify its purport. After assuming responsibilities which could not. be well repudiated, the committee received the astonishing announcement from the Board that the money would not be paid, and this, too, notwithstanding the formal vote of the previous Board and the letter of the chairman of the present one encouraging the undertaking. The total cost of the bridge is £65, of which sum £4O has been subscribed from private sources, leaving a deficit of £25, for which the committee have become personally liable pending the ultimate payment of the Board’s grant, for it can hardly be supposed that the force of public opinion will not induce the incoming Board to redeem the pledges already given by its two predecessors, We believe there is an objection now raised by the Poard that the work was not supervised by lheir engineer, and that the essential condition upon which the money was voted has not been complied with. Supposing that this were so, it is hardly a justifiable ground to take after the understanding had been arrived at with the committee, who knew no more of the existence of the condition, than the Board did of the original grant: but,.according to fact, it is not so, as the bridge was built under Mr Drummond’s supervision, and he has given a certificate approving both of the plan and the construction of it.

Whatever may be the rigid, legal technicalities of the case—and we do not pretend to say it is free from them—it is ungenerous, to say the least of it, to take advantage of what is a mere accident, arising from a delay of which the Board’s then engineer was the sole cause, and so practically repudiate a formal engagement made by a public body. It is not to be thought for a moment that the committee would have entered upon the contract had they not received an assurance of public assistance which, under the circumstances, they had a right to expect; for when private persons are willing to impose further taxes upon themselves and take up 60 or 70 per cent, of the cost of what is purely a work which should have been borne wholly by the local public chest, it partakes of an illiberal spirit to deny them the cooperation that has

ueen promised, and to which they are fully entitled. We trust that upon every priuciple.of right and justice, as well as for the sustentatiou of public confidence, that this matter will be taken up in such a way by the ratepayers as will relieve the Committee of the consequences of an unpleasant dilemma in which they have been placed by no fault of their own.

Captain Chrisp has requested us to draw attention to a few clauses in the Harbour Regulations, which will be found in another column.

We willingly accede to the Harbour Master’s request, for the various subjects to which those clauses draw attention are of importance from many points of view; and while it is of importance that the public should become acquainted with their provisions, they constitute just that class of regulation with which most persons are unfamiliar -their first acquaintance with them, in most cases, being a pe.*mptory summons to answer a specific charge for their infringement. Clauses 47, 48, and 49 of these regulations seem to warrant a special reference to their purport. The primitive state of affairs is now passing rapidly away from amongst üb, and sanitary laws are necessary alike for decency and health. It has been the practice, if indeed it does not still exist, to make the river margin of the township a receptacle for all the carrion and refuse soil that accumulates ; but this must now be put a stop to, or the Harbour Master will be compelled to assert his authority. Clauses 47 and 50 should not be lost sight of. Clause 49 is equally imperative that no rubbish should be deposited except in places indicated by proper authority. The’ other clauses regulating the conduct of wharves, &c., will also be perused with i nterest; and, en passant, we may observe with regard to the Order iu Council, in lieu of clause 66, that as regards carters and watermen it is but proper that they should have licenses granted to them ; they would then be even more amenable to mthority than now, whilethey would be in a position to serve the public better

by claiming from the Government a protection of the rights for which they would have to pay.