MEETING AT GERALDINE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1063, 3 February 1883, Page 2

MEETING AT GERALDINE.

A public meeting, convened by th» Chairman of the Geraldine Road Board in compliance with a requisition, wa held last Wednesday evening in tha Road Board office, Geraldine. Mr Postlethwaite having declined to take the chair, as he wanted to defend the action of the Road Board, on the motion of Mr Fox, Mr Coltman was voted to the chair.

Mr Mundell said that he supposed as he was the first to sign the requisition the duty of saying something devolved upon him. He used Peckham’s road about ten times a day, and therefore he ought to know something about it. He had not come to the conclusion of calling the meeting hastily. He bad thought over it for the last three months. Two petitions had been sent to the Road Board, one signed by 40 and another by 90 ratepayers, and yet no notice had been taken of them. He considered that as the road was the main thoroughfare to the railway station, which every one used, it ought to have been treated differently, but all the notice the Board took of the petitions was to say that by use and patience it would be a good road. That was all nonsense. A river bed might be made a good road by patience, but what were they to do in the meantime. It was the main read to the railway station, and all the traffic, north and south, went on it. He felt he had a grievance, and be would agitate until the road was put in a proper condition. He would not be satisfied with anything less. Mr Fox was working on the road every day, and agreed with what Mr Mundell had said.

Mr Dunlop said he had signed the petitions although he seldom used the road. He would like to hear what the overseer had to say about it. MrShiers said he understood the peti'ions asked the road to be shingled full width. He would never recommend the Board to do bo. If that were dona it would not be on his recommendation, although he was ready to do anything the Board wished him to do. The road only required working to crush down the shingle on it, and it would be found that at the end of the grain season it would be a good road. He would not recommend thq-Board to put soil on shingle as he did not believe in it.

Mr Dunlop said that he knew that clay put on shingle proved successful in bindit together till it became nearly as hard as concrete.

Mr Shiers : Thera is no clay there. Mr Fox : Who asked for the road to ba shingled ? Mr Sluers said the road was hollow io the crown, and the water lodged in it. It would have been in a bad slate after the grain season if it had not been shingled. Within the last two years £370 had been spent on the same road, which was only a little over three miles in length. Mr Mundell said he had never complained for the last seven years, and would not now, only for the road having been shingled. He considered ho had a serious grievance, and had a perfect right to ventilate it.

Mr Postlethwaito regretted he was the only representative of the Board present. The road in question had been treated like all other roads. Six years ago it had been shingled, and it was then proposed to bhnd it, but Mr Hay, who was then in the district, pointed out the absurdity of putting soil on shingle. As Mr Shiers had pointed out, there was another road in the district about which similar complaints had been made, but now it was the best in the county. It would be seen that near the approaches to the bridges, where the traffic went over Peckham’s road at present, it was becoming as good as any road in the district. It was impossible for a road to be in shape immediately after being shingled, but they would find that in a short time, after some iieavy traffic went over it, it would bo an excellent road. As Mr Shiers had pointed out, Peckhara’s road had cost £357 15s since the Ist of January 1881, and if they bad been depending on rates like other Boards it could easily be seen that it could not have received so much attention. The Board was fully alive to the necessity of giving the public good roads, but they had a duty to peiform, and it was not to spend all their money on one road. If the road was fit for traffic that was all that could be expected from| the Board. The road in question passed ) through his own farm ; he had land on both sides of it. He would have to cart 330 acres of grain over it this year, and lip was not cbmplaining. He did not think it was right to bring pressure to beajr on the Board in this manner. When j Mr Mundell presented the requisitionlto him, he said that he would worry the Board until he got what he wanted. Was /this proper pressure to bring to bear on /the Board. If the members of the Board/were such nonentities as to yield to tiuoh j pressure as that, if they were men wh|) could be driven from post to pillar like that, they were not fit for their position, Thera were several names of y*men who on the petitions never/ used the read in their lives, ajnd was the Board fo be influenced w\y petitions of that kind ? Five namqjf on a petition would be better than 50, jlmd if there was a proper requisition sent jibe Board would

receive it. He would point out that they had been requested to erect a bridge over Russell’s creek, where a man could walk across it in his shoes and stockings every day in the year. That would cost £2OO, and he would ask would it be right to go to that expense ? The Board had no right to do such a work. If they were go on like that the rates would soon be 3s in the £, as they were in other places. There were requisitions sent to the Board, *nd half those who signed them never knew what they were signing. He would like to see the ratepayers making themselves familiar with what they were signing before doing so. The present time was unfavorable for public meetings. If it had not been so, a great many farmers would have been present, and they would have told the meeting their opinion respecting the expenditure of money on Peckham’s road. The Board were not in the hands of their officers as some had stated, and they were ready to receive tad consider any requisition sent to them, but they were not so weak as to give way to pressure and do everything they were asked to do. They had to exercise their own discretion sometimes. If they wanted men who would do everything they were told, they had better select nonentities as members of the Board, As regards the last petition sent, it came in when the harvest commenced, and they would agree that it was not a time to employ men who ought to be in the harvest field. Mr Mundell pointed out that what he said to Mr Postlethwaite was that he would agitate until the road was made fit for traffic. He had a perfect right to say so, and he would say so again too, unless something was done. There was one statement made by Mr Postlethwaite which was not correct: that many signed the petition who never used the road. This was not true. There was not a persons name on the petitions who did not use the road, bocuase it was the main road to the Orari railway station, and every one used it. He would like to know whose fault it was if men were brought from the harvest field. Three months ago a petition was sent to the Board about the road, and if they had ] attended to it then no men would have I been brought from the harvest field. It was not a case of want of funds. If it had | been they would grin and bear it, but it j wa« not, and it was adding insult to j injurv for them to be told there that night j that the road was fit for traffic, for it was not.

Mr Anna Sherratt thought they were/ going to two extremes. Would it not W better to consider whether something could not be done to improve the road. The centre of the road was too high, and if it was made so that two vehicles could pass it would bo better. If some dirt were thrown up on both sides and the crown levelled it would bs a great im-

provement, Mr Postlethwaite said the reason the Board did not attend to the first petition was because they were after spending £65 on the road, md they were waiting to see how it would work. The Board would soon be like the old man and bis ass if they were to do what everybody told them,

Mr Farrell asked who was the cause of shingling it all over. Mr Postlethwaite could not answer that question.

Mr Farrell said he had experience in road making, and would say it was wrong to shingle it all. About 20 chains might have been shingled and another 20 chains loft without shingle. The road was the main thoroughfare to the railway station, and it was not fit for traffic. The road was never in shape, and never would be. Mr Sherratt would like to say a few words. The road only needed repairing, and putting gravel on it destroyed it The best thing that could be done with it now was to put the first ploughing up at each side of it, and then throw the second ploughing over it as a blinding. Mr Shiera said the road in some places was only 42ft, 44ft and 46ft wide. He was surprised at Mr Sherratt having the front to stand up and dictate to him how he should make a road, after he (Mr Shiers) having been for the last five years trying to lick his (Mr Sherratt’s) bad work ir(p shape Ho had licked the most of his bad work into shape but this was one he had not done, Mr C. E. Sherratt said that the Winchester road had been done for the last six years and could be repaired now for half-a-crown per chain, He believed in having room at the sides for traffic to pass over in summer, so as to spare the crown of the road for winter, This would save hundreds of pounds to the Board.

Mr Huffev said it was the wind blowing the dost from the aides that raised the crown of the road. He agreed with Mr Sherratt that to plough up at each side, and level the crown down would make an excellent road.

Mr McKenzie said water was lying on a part of it, and heavy traffic could not go over it.

Mr A. Sherratt pointed out that all the roads in the Christchurch, Lincoln, Spreyton, and Elesmere districts were made a chain wide, and they had been blinded with clay. The clay bound the shingle together and made excellent roads of them. Mr C* E. Sherratt said loam was better than clay. It was a mistake to put shinul# on Peckhatn’s road. It ought to btv* been patched.

Mr Post letliwaite wished to know why Mr Sherratt did not make the road right in the beginning. There was not a road in the district that had been made properly during Mr Sherratt’a time. Ho had no objection to ratepayers expressing thei» opinions, but he did not believe in Mr Sherratt, whose fault it was that the road had been badly formed, coming there to dictate to the overseer what he should do.

Mr C. E. Shorratt said it was not his fault if the roads were not properly constructed. Before Mr Postlethwaite came to the district he had frequently reported on roads, and as the Road Board had not. sufficient funds then he invariably had to cut down the cost by 75 per cent. His first report on roads in the districts would have involved an expenditure of many thousands, but there was only £BOO available, and he had to cut his cloth according to bis measure. The roads had not been made as he would wish, but he could not help it; there was no money (o make them. Reference to his reports would ihow that he had recommended roads to be made a certain width, but he was obliged to abandon his proposal because he was hampered for want of funds, Mr Mundell said that was not the question, but whether the road was to remain as it was or not f

Mr McKenzie said the road ought to be made so that two vehicles could pass each other on it.

MrC. E. Sherratt moved—‘That this meeting would suggest to the Road Board the desirability of having Peckham’s road from Peckham’s corner to Ellis’s corner made the full width by the first ploughing being put up to the sides to give it a crown, and the second ploughing used as binding.’ Mr Mundell in seconding the motion said that unless something was done traffic would have to be stopped soon. After some further conversation, Mr Kelroan said something ought to be done for Shaw and Kelman’s road. There was nothing thought of it, and yet it was a direct road to a railway station. Some further discussion having ensued the resolution was put and carried by a majority. Mr Mundell moved a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and the proceedings terminated.