The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1876.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 407, 6 September 1876, Page 2

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

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1876.

“ We shall sell to do man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right.: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The business at the meeting of ratepayers on Monday last, took a somewhat unexpected turn. After the election of a candidate to fill the vacancy at the Poverty Bay Highway Boird, the Chairman introduced the subject of rescinding the resolution passed at the general meeting in July

last, which fixed the rate at 2) per cent, for the current year, and at the same time laid before the ratepayers, a lawyer’s opinion affirming the existence of a power under the Highways Act by which this could be legally accomplished. This, possibly, would have been sufficient to satisfy the layelement, had not a legal gentleman (whose opinion should, carry some weight) stated emphatically at the meeting—although less as a lawyer than a ratepayer —that the Act gave no such power, and that the rate having been fixed, could not be altered for the year. The suddenness with whieh the motion to reconsider the rate was introduced on Monday, found the ratepayers as unprepared then as at the annual meeting, and those who were in favor of its adoption, were compelled to “halt between two opinions;” but, happily, the supporters of Mr Dufaur’s resolution for another meeting to discuss the advisability of raising the rate from 21 per cent, to 5 per cent., were relieved, in a measure, from any expression of opinion as to the legality of the question embodied in it.

Until the meeting on Monday the general impression was that the Highways Act contains no provision for the exercise of such a power as that now sought to be put in force ; and, unfortunately, even now, in the face of the conflicting opinions above alluded to, the way seems to be anything but dear. The only clauses bearing upon the question are the 17th and the 47th, neither of which convey an abrogating power. The former says that the ratepayers shall “ during the month of July, if they “ think fit, fix the nature and amount “of the rate for the then current year,” by which it would appear that the fixing of the rate can only be done at the annual meeting The latter clause states, that “ every such rate shall be “ deemed and taken to have been “ made on the day on which notice of “ the final settlement of the assess- “ inent list shall be published in the “ Provincial Government Gazette,” and it is held by some, that, as the notice has not yet appeared in the Gazette, the rate is liable to alteration, on that account. We do not propose to offer an opinion on the matter at this juncture, beyond stating that the Act does not appear to be so explicit, in support of either of the lawyers’ statements, as is desirable. The matter is not by any means clear of difficulty ; and, as it is necessary to have it cleared up, the proper time to do it will be before any further action is taken towards convening the proposed special ingNow that we are considering the possibility of augmenting the revenue of the Board, it may be pertinent to the occasion to revert again to a subject to which we drew attention some time since. Under the 63rd clause of the “ Highways Act, 1864,” an authority is given to the Superintendent “ to delegate to the Board of “ any district, created under this Act, “ all or any of the powers vested in “ him by any of the following Acts, “that is to say: —‘The Weeds and “ Watercourses Aet 1866 ’ ; * The “ Rural Police Act 1866 ’ ; ‘ The “ Thistle Act 1858 ’; ‘ The Impound- “ ing Act 1867 ’ ; * The Registration “of Brands Act 1871 ’; ‘ The Regis- “ tration of Brands Act 1871 Arnend- “ ment Act 1871 ’ ; ‘ The Dog Nitis- “ ance Act 1854 ’ ; ‘ The Regulation “ of Ferries Act 1863 ’ ; ‘The Slaugh- “ ter-House Act 1866,’ ” and that the fees receivable thereunderby the Board may, during the continuance of the Acts in force, “ be used and applied as “ part of the ordinary revenue of the “ Board.” We believe that with the exception of the Impounding, Dog Nuisance, and Ferries Acts, the fees under the other Acts in force here are not the property of the Poverty Bay Highway Board ; and it is not certain that the Superintendent would delegate the powers under them, if, thereby, he relinquished any appreciable item in the shape of fees ; but, in view of the moribund state of Provincial Governments, it might be worth the trial, and we throw out the suggestion as one calculated to be of some benefit to the district.