Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 918, 16 February 1881, Page 3

We do not quite grasp Councillor Porter’s proposal, made at the last meeting of the County Council, in reply to Mr. Bees’ letter regarding the erection of a bridge over the Taruheru. As it slands it is merely a bald proposition, whose geometrical point hath neither length, breadth, nor substance. It hath no beginning either, therefore it can have no end. No finality can come from such an embryotic nothingness. Cr. Porter agreed with Cr. McKay’s suggestion that it would be time enough to subsidise the bridge when there was practical evidence of its erection. He acknowledged that there was an element of private speculation aboutthework,butit would become public property, and hence greatly enhance the value of County interests. He also thought it was not right in the Council to say it was problematical as to whether the bridge were ever erected or not; but, in the face of all these logical deductions, Cr. Porter saddles his proposal with a condition which practically strips it of all its usefulness. It runs thus : —

That upon completion of the Taruheru bridge, and after the sale of the Kaiti and Whataupoko blocks, this Council will favorably entertain Mr. Rees’ proposal, and contribute £1 for £1 expended by the projectors in the erection of the Waimata bridge; the amount of contribution not to exceed £1,500.

Although we acquit Cr. Porter of any intention to evade the question, or, by a side wind to silence an importunate applicant for assistance in a public cause, we cannot but reflect that no one should know better than he of the effect his proposal, if literally carried into effect, would have. To clog a proposal, whose benefical efficacy should be confined to the present tense, with a condition that “ the Council” would favorably entertain Air. Rees’ application after the bridge was erected, and after the sale of the Kaiti block, is equivalent to relegating the matter to the Greek Kalends, or, in effect, saying “ we will not as- “ sist you at all.” Had the limitation stopped at the sale of Whataupoko, there would have been, at least, a reasonableness in it. It would have shown that there was a desire to meet Mr. Rees ; and we do not say that such is not the case, but Cr. Porter has shown it in a funny kind of way, and which, read by the light of the known hostility of certain County Councillors to Mr. Rees, who would rejoice at his complete discomfiture, does not favorably portend. The Kaiti land is not, and cannot be, in the market for some time, although this fact may have escaped Cr. Porter’s attention when submitting his proposal. In fact we feel assured it did not occur to him, or he would not have been guilty of so great a solecism as to attempt to bind the action of future- councils ; for it is quite probable that the present body will be defunct when the Kaiti block is surveyed and ready for sale. There is a kind of suspicious halfheartedness in the unanimity with which the Council greeted and ultimately passed Cr. Porter’s resolution ; and, unless there is something more definite, and, we may say, of a more logical and reasonable nature, placed on record, Air. Rees may express his feelings by thanking the Council for nothing. We believe that further attempts will be made, at the next sitting of the Council, io bring

this question to a focus, by which time, we doubt not, there will be such tangible evidences of the solidity of Mr. Rees’ proposition, as will dispel doubt in the minds of his most merciless opponents ; and if they are sincere in their desire to aid and assist him iu a work of. almost super-human difficulty—which should command their sympathetic support, rather than provoke their uncalled-for opposition—by all means let Councillors say, more emphatically and pronouncedly than at present, whether they will, as they should do, assist Mr. Rees in his endeavor to promote the interests and prosperity of Poverty Bay.