The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1883. GERALDINE V. MOUNT PEEL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1115, 30 June 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1883. GERALDINE V. MOUNT PEEL.

Circumstance i bare -hitherto prevented us from making a few remarks oa the dispute between the Geraldine and Mount Peel Road Boards. That dispute was succinctly summed up in, a.- letter signed “Justice,” which we published a, tew issues ago. The position is this. Before the land lying beside the road in dispute was occupied, the ratepayers oft'ic Geraldine Road District did not require a road from the Dog to the railway station. There was scarcely a ratepayer living in that locality who would use it, and so the Geraldine Board did not think it necessary to make it. The ratepayers of the Mount Peel District, however, required the road, and when the Mount Peel Board found! they could not persuade the Geraldine Board to make it, they agreed to bear half the expense.of making and maintaining it. This agreement was carried out, and all went Well Until February, when, the Mount Peel Board declined to have any more to do with it. The Chairman —the Hon Mr Ac!and —gave as a reason for declining to assist in maintaining,the road, that ever since it was made it had been such a source of dissatisfaction, that they resolved to have no more to do with-it-. Mr Tripp also, pointed out that Mount Peel was forced into the agreement. They had no alternative but to accept it, or do Without a road. We think that our correspondent “ Justice ” puts the matter very : fairly.

He says that in the early days, when the land was not settled on, and the road was principally used by Mount Peel .ratepayers, it was right and proper that Mount Peel should bear a share of the cost of maintaining it, but now, when Geraldine ratepayers are living on either side of it and all the district is settled, it is only fair that Mount Peel should be relieved from all responsibility in reference to the future maintenance of it. Our correspondent ignores the question as to whether the agreement is binding or not. He holds that it ought no longer to be adhered to, and we quite with him. Under that agreement the Mount Peel Board has done well for the Geraldine Board, because if the road had not been made at the expanse of both Boards, the Geraldine Board would hare to make it since to give a highway to its own ratepayers. The road has cost up to the present time £2,403 Is, and of that sura £l2Ol 6s has been contributed by the Mount Peel Board. That we think is as much as they ought to be called upon to contribute, but they offer to aid more : they are willing now to share the cost of putiing the road in repair. Wo should advise the Geraldine Board to accept this offer, and say no more about it, even if under the agreement they can claim more. When we first heard the Geraldine side of the question we supported it, but the other side of the story has changed our opinion, and we now hold that Mount Peel has made out a good case. We do not presume to say whether the agreement is binding or not. The Geraldine Chairman says it is, and the Mount Peel Chairman says it is not. But this we say, that it is not a liberal policy for any Board to adopt, to ask a neighboring Board to maintain a road because ratepayers in that Board happen to use it. (Supposing this policy was adopted through the country what would be the’result? No Temuka man could go to Geraldine, no Geraldine man could go to Temuka, and no man from either place could go to Mount Peel, if the Board to which they paid rates did not contribute to the maintenance of the roads they used. Supposing the Borough Council of Timaru was to leave its streets unrepaired until the public bodies whose ratepayers use them contribuled a share of the cost, what would be the consequence ? The only ground the Geraldine Board has to go upon.is that there is an agreement under which Mount Peel is bound to join in maintaining the road, and, whether that agreement is binding or not in point of law, we certainly say that in fair play it ought no longer to be. What is more, we firmly believe that the majority of the Geraldine Board would not insist upon its being carried out had it been their own private business, because they would not .think it fair as between man and man. .W 4 trust therefore that the Gebalfl'ine Board will] take our advice and cancel the agreement as soon as;tbe toad is put in proper repair. /If they do not ! do ;: this they will regret it. The ratepayers in that district are anxious to join the Mount Peel district; to do so they need only petition the County Council,’and if that is done the Geraldiije Board will have to pay over to .the Mount Peel Board more money than would keep the road in repair for many years as the Rangitata district’s share of the funds in hand. The Geraldine Board has nearly £22,000 to its credit, and the question for it to discuss is, How much of the sum would the Rangitata division be entitled to in the event of it joining the Mount Peel district ? As a matter of policy wo think it would he better to settle the dispute amicably, because if a lawsuit ensues the result will be that both Boards will lose more than would maintain the road for many years.