Untitled

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2467, 14 February 1881, Page 2

A cor respondent, whose letter appeared in Saturday’s issue, takes us to task because of our rcent comments on the doings of the Geraldine County Council. Our correspondent says the article to which he alludes is “ in bad

taste, unjust', ami shows a want of information on tlic subject.” The iirst two counts of this indictment arfesimply matters, of opinion.; As regards/! taste”, we intended that our remarks slfduld ho wjholesomo rather .than pahitablejto the members of the Council; and; ytc ai'cs pleased to lind our expectation realised, if eventually they produce a remedial effect, their “ had taste," we presume, will l)c forgiven. That they arc “ unjust” is merely an assertion. To be of any value the proof must be forthcoming. The remarks, were written, ip. good faith, and it remains for the Council and those who take their part, to show that they were undeserved. If this can be done, wc are quite open to conviction, and we shall make all the amend in our power. The county of Geraldine, we are told, “ is the largest in the whole colony,” and ‘‘should not be spoken of as ‘ a moderately large one.’ ” To save our correspondent pain in future, we shall term it an immoderately large one —too large, we think, for the two or three gentlemen who have accepted the responsibility of representing it. The fact that it is so large, and that its interests are divided, is an excellent reason why it should he cut up, In referring to railway travelling we raised no objection to country members receiving their travelling expenses, but we commented on the ludicrous, if not indecent haste betrayed by the Geraldine members in endeavoring to negociate for free railway passes before they entered into the dog’s meat business, /is for the impounded land fund which our correspondent says “ went direct to the Road Boards,” its whereabouts is immaterial to our argument. We may submit, however, that it is providential that the Boards obtained control of the money lest it might have gone towards making bridges fori the squatters of Ashburton. Our correspondent has jumped at the conclusion that we are unacquainted with the powers conferred on County Councils under the Public Works Act, but wc can assure him that he is quite in error in supposing that wo were unaware of its provisions when we commented on the absurd, impolitic, and suicidal maimer in which the Geraldine County Council acted when face to face with an Ashburton deputation rc the Kangitata traffic bridge. That bridge has been in process of construction for years past, and the Ashburton County Council has done its level best, lirst to induce and then to coerce the Geraldine and Mount Peel Koad Boards into bearing a proportion of the cost. We blame the Geraldine members for the unaccountable alacrity they displayed in acknowledging a serious responsibility. We maintain that they are not justified in committing the ratepayers of the county to an expenditure of A’3ooo on a work of extremely doubtful utility. The Geraldine County Council have confessed judgment before even the slightest pressure was brought to bear on them, and out of an empty treasury they have undertaken to pay £3OOO for the benefit chiefly of two or three sheep runs. Our correspondent agrees with us that a county rate is undesirable, and he is not sure that it will bo necessary. All we can say is that it is a pity the County Council did not share his views, instead of resolving, if necessary, to impose a county rate. As to the cause of the failure of the members for the Levels district to secure a separate county, we are quite aware that the petit oners were sold in a most truculent manner by one of the original champions of separation; but the matter has merely been delayed, and if their request is pressed during the next session we have good grounds for believing that it will be granted. We consider that the attitude of the Geraldine County Council in connection with the Kangitata bridge affair should prove an invincible weapon in the hands of the Levels ratepayers in demanding separation. It has given the original promoters of the agitation an excellent opportunity of prosecuting their efforts to a successful issue. To wilfully divert £3OOO of the County funds from the roads and other public works of the County towards a bridge that is chiefly wanted by a few of the members of the Ashburton County Council, is an injustice to every farmer in the district. Neither the ratepa3 r ers of the County of Geraldine, nor their representatives, have been consulted as to the policy of erecting the bridge, and the county members would only have been preferring the intei’ests of the settlers here, to those of the Ashburton squatters, had they taken up a defensive attitude and fought the battle of their constituents. As it is they have indulged in a very transparent sham fight ; they have allowed themselves to be over-awed by Messrs Wright. Walker, and section 85 of the Public Works Act , and they have retired from the fray like freshly caught unregistered dogs, with drooping tails and covered with anything but glory. . ■