Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1315, 12 June 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1883.

Ax article appeared in our contemporary on Saturday evening last, headed “ The County Council, the Borough Council and the Turanganui Bridge." The author admitted he dealt “ warmly" with the question. He would have been still more accurate if he had added —and without a knowledge of the fact*. T he article ia misleading. It is not our special mission to take up the cudgels on behalf of the County Council. We leave for the present that august body to work out its own destiny. Early in the veer, the Borough Council were informed by the Government that their application for a sum of £4.000 under the Roads and Bridges Act for the construction of a bridge across the Turanganui river, had been so far acceeded to, that £1,500 —-the nsual scale of three-eighth* of the amount applied for —would be granted A denotation soon after waited on the County Council to obtain the cooperation of the latter body in carrying out the work It was difficult to extract from the deputation what they really wanted. 'Eventually it was ascertained that if the County would guarantee one thousand pounds, that sum would represent its fair quo a Some nf the members of the County Council stronglv endeavored to have that guarantee given. The far-sighted policy of Councillor Johnson prevailed, a* it did in voting an extrava gant salary the other day to the Conntv Engineer. The guarantee was refused. It did not occur to the Councillors who favored the guarantee to slink out of the room, and stop the business or the question might have remained undecided tip to the present moment. The parsimony of the County Council —or rather certa'n members of it—compelled the Borough Council to decline the grant of £1,500, as it could not with that sum alone undertake a £4,000 job. The qnes. tion of making a joint application under the Act in the June applications was discussed. Cut contemporary is wronglv informed when he alleges that the Conntv Council “ made a wonderful proposal to euchre the ilovernment out of £t 000.” A wide distinction still hanpilv exists between the Council Chambers and a “ den of thieves.” The statement of our contemporary let pass unchallenged might

prejudice the applications now being i made by the Council for assistance < under the Roads and Bridges Construction Act. The point discussed was as to the mode of proceedin': in applying for the £4,000 —whether each body should apply for the whole amount separately, or a joint application be sent from the two Councils Neither the County Council nor the Borough Council ever coni emulated any attempt to “ euchre,” as our contemporary classically expresses it, the Government, in the sense of taking an unfair advantage. On the 17th May last, when the subject a«ain came before the t'ounty Council, it was resolved to apply for £l.OOO. No mention was made, until the last meeting of the County Council that they should apply for £2.000, that »e, take half the responsibility. It was mentioned then for the first time by the deputation from the Borough Council. We need not enumerate the other in* accuracies in our contemporary’s remarks in connection with the

this matter. Unfortunately, he loses heart at the very outset. He says, “ That the matter will now drop “ there is but lit' le doubt, and the “ construction of a public work of “ great public benefit put off by the “ narrow selfishness of four or five “ men who were chosen to n-presen' “ their fellow-settlers.” Why should the matter drop ? Are the two Councils unwilling to make a joint application for the £4,000? As we understand it, certainly not We are indebted to our contemporary for the information that "four or five men chosen by their fellow-settlers ” had the poioee to have a public work of great public benefit” constructed. Have not the ratepayers of the district a voice in the matter. It seems to us only fair, that large property-holders in the Waimata riding and other parts of the district, such as Mr Sei hour and Mr Percival Barker, who contribute largely to the revenue of the County, and who do not even yet possess a decent track to their homes, should have an opportunity of raising their voices, however feebly, as to whether or not they are hungering and thirsting to be taxe I for the con struciion of a bridge at the foot of Gladstone Road, If less narrow mindedness and petty jealousy and more public spirit and business tac' prevailed among the members of the Borough Council and Coun'y Council, it would be better for the whole dis

trict. The construction of a bridge over the Turanganui River is no more a work specially devolving on the Wai mat a Riding, than the oonstruction of a breakwater. Both works are manifestly to the advantage of the whole district. And as of the breakwater, so also of the bridge, much depends upon the site chosen. Is it forgotten that the General Government have an important voice in determining where and how bridges | are to be constructed ? Many points will have to be considered before the Turanganui River is bridged, but for the present all that need be done is for the joint application from th» Borough and Cou ty Councils to be made to the Government before the 30th of June. It will be time enough to squabble about how much each Corporation will pay when they learn the fate of their application. Should the Government, as it ought, in atonement for the historical indifference and neglect shown to the Bay by its predecessors, grant the amount asked for under the Roads and Bridges Construction Act, the total payment to be made by the whole district for the £4,000, would be simply one hundred pounds a year for ten years To seriously discuss the question as to whether or not the County should pay £5O a year out of its special rates is absurd. It is equally absurd for the Borough Council to think of abandoning the application even if they had to pay the whole of the special rates of one hundred a year. Ihe solitary advantages to the Borough of Gisborne in procuring met-1 from the Kaiti Beaeh, for its streets, at a reduced cost, and with increased facilities would alone justify that body in applying for the whole sum. It is for the ratepayers afterwards to ratify their action. There is nothing in connection with this subject to warrant anyone getting warm It is a matter for cool calculation and consideraiion. The interests to be promoted are those of the district. To calculate how they can be best served is the solemn duty of those elected as representatives, in the local governing assemblies