Te Aroha-Waiorongomai Main Road.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 390, 3 August 1889, Page 2

Te Aroha-Waiorongomai Main Road.

Since the recent agitation on the part of some individuals at Te Aroha for a Borough, we have I een asked by several how it came about that the Piako County Council sad.lled Te Aroha Town Board with the whole cost of maintaining the County road, within the Town District boundaries. Those who have asked the question state they have been told the late membeis of the To Aroha Town Board asked the County Council to hand over the control of the road to the Board which would then keep it in repair. We need scarcely say we hays told those who have spoken to us on the matter this is not 90 ; and explained to them how it waa done. But as no doubt the same 'yarn' has been pretty generally spread abroad (like many other false reports and. statements h»ve been spreads/or a purpose), we think it advisable* to inform our readers geneially how it came about, and they will then see for themselves that ns a matter of fad the members of the Te Aroha Town Board who went out of office lastyear,never asked the Council to do anything of the kind, but that as a matter of fact Crs Mills and Murphy agreed to the resolution in favour of the co^t of maintenance being sadd Jed on the Town Board, when it was first proposed. ]n fact the statement that the Town Board asked to be made liable for the cost of maintaining the main County road, is on a par with many other statements emanating from the same source, viz., utterly false. It was at the ordinaiy monthly meeting of Piako County Council, held at Te Aroha on March 15th, 1888, that the resolution \rt\s passed ; and it was then resolved vnanimoiisli) (Ois Murphy and Mills being both present) "That in accordance' with the provisions of Sect'on 20 of the Public Works Amendment Act, 18 7, a special meeting of the Council be held in Mi Puvitfc's office, Te Aroha, at 4 p.m., April 12th, for the purpose of making a special order declaring that that portion of the County road fiom Ohinemuii County boundary, going towards Waiolongomai, which lies within the Town Distiiet of Te Aroha, shall be placed under the control of the Te AiohaTown Board ; and directing that the cost of construction and maintaining such jiarfc of said road shall be borne by Te Aroha Town Board." At a later stuge of the proceedings at the same meeting, Messrs Dobson (chairman), and Iloti, merrbers of the late Te Aroha Town Board } on behalf of the Town Board requested the County Council to grant the Board permission to repair the footpaths on the main county load (i.e. Whitaker-street, Te Aroha), which permission the Council gave. It was absolutely necessaty that the Town Board should obtain such permission from the Council, before the Board could expend Board funds on County property, i.e., the footpaths on both sides of the County road. But the members of the Board neither then or at any other meeting of the Council, ever asked permission, or even suggested, that the control and maintenance of the main road be saddled upon them. One would have thought the representatives of Te Aroha Riding would have been the last persons in the world to allow such a proposal to be passed without protesting against it, even though they might be out numbered when put to the vote. At the following meeting, also held at Te Aroha, on April 12th, 1888, they (Crs Mills and Murphy) did make a kind of protest, by moving that half the cost of maintaining said road be provided by the Council out of goldfields revenue. But that does not in any way excuse them for consenting to the arrangement when first proposed. Now what lead up to the Council deciding to saddle the Te Aroha Town District with the whole cost of maintaining the road ? No special reason was given at the time, but we believe it was the result of their being so continuously pestered by the Te Arohn members to do absurd things. It is well known to all old residents in the district that for some years scarcely a meeting passed without a good deal of valuable time being occupied in discussing " Clarkes D;ain," doing or undoing at; the request of the Te Aroha members. With Cr Mills this drain seemed quite a pet scheme ; and at the Council meeting held at Morrinsville, December 23rd, 1887, Cr Mills moved (and Cr Murphy seconded the proposition), that a kauri shoot, say two chains long, ho put in through Clarke's. The Engineer was requested to report ns to the cost, and in hip report to the Council on January 20th, 1688, estimated the cost at £50(!) It is needless to *ay the Council did not carry out Crs Mills and Murphy's sugggestion. As a matter of fact at the Council meeting of February 17th, 1888, Dr Murphy admitted the Council must have already expended al out £60 on that drain of Mr James Ola> Ice's, although ho

did not think ho (Clarke) had suffered loss through flood water, etc., and as a furth/r matter of lecord, so soou «s the Couifcil (whose patience had by that time been tried beyond all further eudnrance in thi3 matter), had the water turned off by another cl'annel altogether, tlien Mr Clarke forthwith petitioned to get it, or some of it, bach again. The very man whrim Cr Mills had held up as such a sufferer in consequence of the water going through his garden (!) About the same time a strong effort was made to' get the Council to make a bridge into Mr Alexander Russells place (private property), at an estimated cost of £4 10s, which request was also very properly refused. ' And so on we could go on enumerating examples of the petty annoyances by unreasonable requests.. We believe it was to rid themselves as far aspossibleof this kind of thing,thai in some measure at least, induced the Council to pass the resolution they did, and every ratepayer within the Town District has had to suffer in consequence.. The present representatives of the TeAroha Riding have not been a success in the Council, but quite the reverser And when we see men make such statements behind the Council's 1 back as they have, with respect to what the Council have done and the money they have expended, it is hard to expect the Council can respect them, or do other than receive statements they may make vrith a certain amount of caution. Why 1 did Crs Mills and Murphy by their votes have the place for holding the Council meetings removed to the most distant corner possible — Cambridge, when they were being held and ' wou-ld (but for. them) continue to have been held at Morrinsville? Was it frpm any -good, metive ? Was it in the "interests of this district to thus, throw obstruction in, the way of members of the Council visiting the place' and the goldfield themselves as often as possible (as would be the ease if they met Dear at hand ) ? Of course by adopting the course they did the Te Aroha members got their travelling 1 expenses raised from 13^ a meeting to 345. And what about the'punt and Mr James Stewart ? Truly a nice sample of legislators, who would like to have the management of the goldfield eutrusted to them.