IKE ROAD ROLLER.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 53, 27 February 1912, Page 5

IKE ROAD ROLLER.

FURTHER BOROUGH COUNCIL MEETING. PURCHASE APPROVED. A special meeting of the Borough Council was held last night mainly for the purpose of discussing the road roller question. There were present, the Mayor (Mr J. Masters, in the chair), Crs. T. L. Paget, T. Lawson, J. W. Boon, J. McAllister, R. McK. Morison, S. Ward, G. ■Sangster, and J. 1). Healy. The first business of the evening was the hearing of the case as put by the representative of one of the firms who have prepared estimates of machines for the Council’s consideration. Afterwards the Council got on to the matter of broken metal, the state of the road, and then the financial question. The point where finance directly concerned the roller was when the Mayor stated that they would have a balance this year of £933.

Councillor Paget said he agreed that the Borough wanted a roller, and wanted it badly. As to the question whether thoy could afford to buy one, he wished to point out that estimates before them showed that the Council bad .spent £704 less upon the streets than they bad estimated. The Mayor claimed to have £933 to spend upon a steam roller. He claimed that they had only £159, and intimated that it practically amounted to starving the streets to buy the roller. This was not the view held by the Mayor. He regarded the'matter in another light. They wanted a roller, and they had simply been economical, and had not wasted any money in any way. He was of opinion that the streets were not in any worse condition for this time of year, than they had been in previous years, and that they would be all right soon. The Mayor moved: That, in the opinion of this Council, tho time has arrived to purchase a road roller. Cr. McAllister opposed the motion. From what )ie could gather there was not sufficient work for the roller to justify this expenditure. They all knew it would make good roads, but it would add very considerably to the expenses of the Borough. When they reckoned that it would bo costing them, in interest and upkeep, something like £3OO a year, they would see that it was a very heavy burden indeed for the ratepayers to hear. Would the benefit they could derive from the machine make rip for that expense. They had not carried a loan proposal in the matter. If they had, they might he justified in. making the expenditure. If jhey did have a poll, woulcj it he carried P Councillor Paget: 310 to 62. (Laughter.) Councillor McAllister continued that this was a point of which they should be sure. Councilor Paget ;Is this “sand-bagg-ing.” (More laughter.) Councillor McAllister went on to say that Councillors had assumed that there was nothing to he said against purchasing a road roller. They had npt yet advanced sufficient reasons to ( convince .him. l

The speaker then went on to refer to a previous discussion regarding a discrepancy in the Borough Overseer’s estimate in connection with the cost of the upkeep of the roads. Councillor Paget questioned whether a difference of something like fifty per cent could he termed a “discrepancy.” Tt was like the Electric Light /‘discrepancy.” (Laughter).

Councilor McAllister went on to say the discussion reminded him of a certain man who had enough money to buy three boots. He found he only needed two pairs, so he went in for a motor car with the savings. (Laughter.) The motion was carried and after some discussion a further motion was moved :“That a road roller and scarifier only be procured.” This was not put to the meeting, the Council deciding to adjourn in order to get fresh data, on which to decide the question.