GOVERNMENT GRANTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 37, 26 January 1912, Page 5

GOVERNMENT GRANTS.

SHOULD GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL BODY EXPEND? A LExNGTHY DISCUSSION. A circular letter was read at Wednesday’s meeting of the Whangamomona County Council from the Public Works Department re Whangamomona to Wanganui River Road (on account of £2000) acknowledging receipt of

the Council’s letter intimating its willingness to undertake the expenditure -of the vote offered for the Whangato Wanganui River Road, and in reply pointed out that the sum of £l9B, which was mentioned in the offer, has been authorised to the Resident Engineer to enable him to carry out certain work; .and it is understood that the Council concurred in the Resident Engineer doing this work. Including the sum of £l9B, f £9OO of the £2OOO has now been authorised to the Resident Engineer, and there wilj) thus be £llOO for the Council to expend. A deputation consisting of eight settlers on the Whangamomna Road, headed by Messrs Geever and Bradley, waited on the Council with reference to the expenditure of these grants on the Whangamomona Road, to which they offered great objection, and asked the Council to rescind the motion in respect- to the expenditure of those grants and hand same over to the Public Works Department, so that they can get on with the work at once.

Through some exchanges of remarks between the Council members and the members of the deputation, a rather heated argument was indulged in. Mr Geever in reply to Cr Diggins said: “You must live in Strathmore'. What do you know about it?” Cr Diggins: On what grounds do you want the resolution rescinded ?

Mr Geever: Because if the Government expend it, it will Cost us nothing for administration. Cr. Diggins asked a number of other questions at length, and in reply to Cr Diggins Mr Geever said: * ‘We are settlers interested and strongly object, and that should be final.”

After some further discussion the chairman pointed out that the councillors were here to comply with the settlers’ wishes. They accepted the expenditure of the money because the Government was so dilatory in expending the money and they thought it would be better if the Council took over the expenditure and made the road ,at once, even at a , cost of 7-£ per cent for administration, than wait for years for the road to he made by the Public Works' Department, and was quite willing to, favour' the rescinding of The ipotion., | Cr Bacon poihtedi.out that most! of the members of 1 the deputation were 1 on a dray Toad, 1 and' not bn a fifth track.

Mr Bradley said every settler on the road strongly objected, although lie considered the : Council had acted in their best interests. The position now 'is a similar one to that which came;' up;: some: 12 months ago* when tli6 ! " Oounfcil refused 1 1 the 1 expenditure of the grants. Cr McGutchan hlien moved; “That the resolution , dealing with tho expenditure, of grants be rescinded, and that the Roads Department be requested to undertake the expenditure of the road grants offered to the Council, as the administrative expenses of this expenditure would be too heavy a burden upon the rate- revenue of the district, in view of the fact that the entire area of the country is of rugged character and of papa formation, subject in the past and for many years to come so constantly recurring slips, the repairs and maintenance charges in connection with which have already placed upon the ratepayers a serious financial responsibility for upkeep of all those roads vested in the Council’s control by the Government, and an increase of this responsibility such as 'that suggested will in this Council’s opinion very gravely prejudice the future of a young and struggling district.”

C’r Coyno seconded pro forma. The motion was then put, and lost, the voting being as follows:—Ayes: Crs. Jury, Coyne, McCutchan and Meredith ; noes: Crs Diggins, Cleland, Roberton, Bacon. The voting being equal, the chairman voted against it, and it was lost. Or Coyne moved that the matter be deferred until next meeting, and that the clerk write to the Public ■Works Department in terms of the latter portion of Cr McCutchan’s resolution. This was seconded by Cr Meredith. On a division being taken the motion was lost, Crs Meredith, Jury, Coyne, and McCutchan voting for the motion, and Crs Diggins, Cleland, Roberton, Bacon, voting against it. The voting being equal, the chairman (Mr Meredith) cast his vote against it, and it was accordingly lost. Cr Baoon objected on the ground that it was extraordinary business, and required notice of motion, and also rose to a point of order with respect to Cr McCutchan addressing the deputation and not the chairman, but was not taken heed of by the chairman,. The deputation remained while the /discussion proceeded and at times part in the argument. The matter now remains in the same position as before, and no doubt deputations will again be in strong force representing both sides at the next meeting of the Council.