THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY ROAD, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 458, 29 March 1890, Page 2

THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY ROAD, TE AROHA.

AVk are Rure all residents within Te Arolm Town District must feel gratified that Piako County Council, at their monthly meeting on Saturday the 15th inst, resumed the control and maintenance of the County road witiiin the Town District’ We have always con«idered it very unjust that the coat of repairing this portion of the County road should he thrown on the Town Board, and maintained that the entire cost of repairing this road should be charged against the general County fund., Piako County Council have always acted so fairly, nay more, so veiy liberal!}’ towards Te Arolm, that to some, who are not fully conversant with local matters fora number of years past, it may appear strange the Council should ever have sought to bo relieved of its responsibility with respect to this road. For the information of such we may briefly state the facts and circumstances which led up to their so doing. At the ordinary monthly meeting of Piako County Council, held at Te Anli-i on March . Isth, 1888, it was resolved unanimously (Crs Murphy and Mills being both present) “ That in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Public Works Amendment Act, 1887, a special meeting of the Council he. held in Mr Pavitt’s office, Te Arolm, at 4 p.uj.,. April 12th, for the purpose of making a special order declaring that that portion of the County road from Ohinemnri County boundary, going toward® Waiorongoinai which lies within the Town District of Te Arolm, shall he placed under the control of the Te Aroba Town Board; and directing that the cost of constructi- n and maintaining such part of said road shall be borne by To Aroba Town Board.” At a later stage of the proceedings at the same meeting, Messrs Dobson (chairman), and Ilott, members of the late Te Aroba Town Board, on behalf of the Board requested

the County Council to grant the Board permission to repair the footpaths on the main County road (i.e. Wl,itaker-street, Te Aroha),which permisaiontho Council gave. It was absolutely neeeaenry that the Town Board should obtain such permission from the Council, before they 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 nor at any other meeting of the Council, ever asked permission, or even suggested, that the control and maintenance of tlie main road be saddled upon them. One would have tin,tight the representatives of To Aroha -Riding would have been the last persons in the world to allow such a proposal to beimade 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 I2th, 1888, they (Crs Mills and Murphy) did make a kind of protest, by moving that half the cost of maintaining said road he 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 led 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 tlie result of their being so continuously pestered by the To Aroha members to do absurd thingfi. It is well known to old residents in the district that for some years previously scarcely a meeting passed without a good deal of valuable time being occupied- in discussing “ Clarke’s Drain,” and in doing or undoing work in connection therewith 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 (a..d Cr Murphy seconded the proposition), that a kauri shoot, say two chains long, be put in through Clarke’s land. The Engineer was requested to report as to the cost, and in his report to the Council on January 20th. 1888, estimated tlie cost at LSO (!) It is needless to say the Council did not carry out Crs Mills and Murphy’s suggestion. Ak a matter of fact at the Council meeting of February 17th, 1888, Cr Murphy admitted the Council must have already expended about L6O on Mr Clurke’s drain, although lie did

not think Mr Clarke hud suffered loss through flood water, etc., and as a further matter of record, so soup as tlie, Council (whose patience had by tjiat time been tried beyond all further endurance in this matter), had the water tqrnecl ojf by anotljef channel altogether, tjmii Mr 'Chirki 1 forthwith petitioned to get i[, or some pqrtiop of it, back again. TJie vejy man \y||ojn (3): Mills had held upas such a sufferef iq consequence of the water going througl; hi? garden (!) About the same time a stpqng effort was made tq get the Council to (qako abridge into Mr Alexander Russell’s place (private property), which, ref|nes{; Was also very properly fefuseej. Apd so op we eoiil(| eqpjqefnte various examples of the petty annoy a pees 1 by unreasonahle requests. WnVelieve it wa 4 * j : to rid theinselves as far as possible of this ' I

kind of tkinff, Hint in some measure at least, induced the Council to pass the resolution they did, and every ratepayer within the lown District- lias lmd to suffer in consequence, The present representatives of the Te Aroha Riding have not been a success in the Council, but quite the reverse. And when we see then make such statements behind the Council’s back as they have, with respect to what the Conned 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 make with a certain amount of caution. Why did Crs Mills and Murphy by. their -votes have the place for holding the Council meetings removed to the most distant corner possible, viz,Cambridge, when they were being hold—and would (but for them) continue to have been held—at Morrinsville ? Was it from any good motive ? 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 as often as possible (as would be the case if they mot nen r at hand) ? To be sure T>v adopting the course they did the Te Aroha members got their travelling expenses raised.

We consider it is only just to Cr Hanmer that Te Aroha residents should know that he has all along been anxious to do anything in his power, directly or indirectly, towards having the burden of maintaining this portion of the County road removed from the Town District, As a matter of fact Cr Hanmer within three weeks of the time of his being elected (25th July Inst) a member of the Council, although unable to attend the first meeting of tho Council following, held on August 10th, being away from home at the time, nevertheless sent over a written notice by Mr Ilott to be tabled at that meeting, to the effect that at the following monthly meeting he would move that the special order throwing Control and cost of maintaining this road on the Town Board be rescinded ; requesting Mr Ilott, however, to first make enquiry, and, if after so doing he considered there would be no chance ©f the motion being then carried, not to table it. The motion was not tabled, Mr Ilott ascertaining, that owing to the petition to have Te Aroha constituted a Borough being then before Government, and no provision having been made nt the commencement of the financial 3 ear for maintaining this portion of road, a majority of the Council would certainly oppose such a motion if made before the close of tho present financial year. It being known that Cr Hanmer was moving in the matter, Cr Murphy then stepped in and took it up, gave notice of motion, etc., that the special order referred to be rescinded, which, motion was negatived at the Council meeting held on. December 21st ; only Crs Murphy, Hanmer, and Mills voting in favour of it. Cr Mills next took up the running, and gave the notice of motion to a,like effect which was dealt wit 1 nt the last County meeting, with the result the Council (it then being nearthc close of the financial year and the Borough movement thoroughly squashed) unamninushf voted in favour of the motion, which will need confirming at the next meeting of Council. Cr Hanmer has further done good service to Te Aroha b}- moving that the connecting link between the Thames-Waikato main County, road.(terminating nt the railway bridge)and Thames-Te Aroha main County road (Whitaker street), viz , Bridge street, Te Aroha, he also taken over and maintained by the County (if such can lawfully be done) ; for which action the best thanks of local residents are due him.

We hope past experience will teach a lesson both to present and future members for Te 4roha. Riding, and clearly demonstrate to them’ that the Council do not believe in allowing even any of its own members to continually pester them to do unreasonable and absurd things, and that the interests of their constituents will be best served by their giving less attention to petty, local matters, and a little more to Works of general utility.