The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1883.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1183, 8 December 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1883.

THE COUNTY COUNCIL. The Geraldine County Council is doomed. There is no hope for it. When this became apparent a short time since, we consoled ourselves with the hope that Temnka, Geraldine and Mount Peel would combine together and forma compact County of their own. We pointed out that their interests are inseparable, and that they would be far better off by uniting under one local Government body. Of course we did not suggest that the Road Boards

should be abolished. Sucl, a course could never be adopted. Che Mount Peel Road Board has about £17,000 to its credit; the Geraldine Bard about L 20,000 and the Temuka Rad Board £2,000, It is evident, theefore, that the Road Boards could not beabolished, because such a course would eoessitate all this money being thrown.mto one common fund, and it is obvioufthe rich Boards would not agree to tht. We should not like to see it becaus we dm not think it would be fair, or atisfactory to the majority of thepeople. The proper way to raana;e in our opinion, therefore, is to allow the Road Boards to remain ntact, and to have a County Oounci for three districts, to build and maintaa the —connecting links between the Birds —large bridges on main thorough fires, and other works, such as the irrigaion of the plains. The principal objacion wa have to the abolition of the Coihty system is that there is danger of conflicts arising between Road Boards, and of works, in the construction and maintenance of which more than one Board is interested, being neglected. Instances of this have been so frequently quoted that to point out one now if unnecessary. But so far as we can learn there is no hope of the three Boardi adopting our suggestions. A meetinghas taken place between Mount Peel aid Geraldine with the view of arranging preliminaries for constituting a separate County of the two Boards. Mount Peel has, we are informed, refused to join with Geraldine, and there is an end of it, The principal ground for objection Mount Peel had was tint as representation in the Council was on the basis of population, it could not return its fair share of Councillors and consequently it would not have powers with the other Road Boards in the Council. There was somefhing in the argument, certainly, bnt we would remind Mount Peel that though it suffered under a similar disability in the Geraldine County Council, it has got more out of it than any other body. The Rangitata Bridge is more useful to the Mount Peel and Mount Cook districts than the others. Geraldine, no doubt, makes some use of it, Temuka a little, and the Levels nothing at all The Levels, Temuka, and Geraldine have to pay their share towards that Bridge as well as the other two districts to which it is absolutely necessary. Yet the first to complain, and try to wriggle out of it is Mount Cook, the second is the Levels, and the third is Mount Peel. There is an excuse for the Levels, but there is none for Mount Cook and Mount Peel, who have betrayed a great deal of selfishness in the matter. Let Mount Peel people remember that the Rangitata Bridge will not stand for ever, and that it is possible its maintenance may yet cost them something. On the day they have to put their hands in their pockets and repair it without assistance from the remainder of the district it is possible they may regret their actions now. If there is one district more than another that ought to feel dissatisfied with the County system Temuka is the one. It was at first constituted the County town, but the Mount Peel and Mount Cook representatives helped to rob it of that distinction by removing the offices to Timaru. This alone was sufficient to create discontent, hut after all Temuka is the only district that is loval to the county. Geraldine, the least benefited of any comes next. The Geraldine district is quite independent. It is has plenty of money ; it has men that take very good core of it, and it does not matter one jot to it whether the Council is abolished or no'. It can manage its own affairs well, and i‘s traditions giye a guarantee that it will not spend a penny of its money mi works which another Board ought to do. The Geraldine people are aboat tire! of the County system, and mean to abolish it, They can afford to do so, no doubt, but after all we do not consider it a wise step. It would in onr opinion have been better to reform the County. There can he no doubt but that Geraldine and Mount Peel would gain more by joining with Temuka than Temuka would gain by joiu’ng them. Valuation in Mount Peel is lower than in any of the other districts; it is highest in Temnka, and consequently it would have to contribute more in the shape of rates to the revenue of the Council. We do not expect that anything we can say now can alter matters one bit, but at the same time we think it right to point these facts out to the people. j

THE PROPOSED BOROUGH. A few facts came out at the last meeting of the Road Board, which showed

how Temuka was cheated out of being constituted a Borough. When the original petition was signed the new valuation roll was not made nj>, and the valuation was taken from tho old one, Under the old system a man was ratedjf for the yearly value ol his property —> that is, the rent it would fetch if let ; under the new system the selling value of property is taken as the rating basis. To make this more easily understood, we quote an instance. Supposing Tom Jones owned £IOOO worth of property in Temuka, and that it was assessed at a yearly value of £SO, under tho old system his name would appear on the rate roll for £SO;, while under the new system he would be credited with £IOOO. And then supposing Tom Jones signed the first petition and got credit only for £SO, and that John Smith who had exactly the same amount of property as Tom Jones and appeared on the new rate roll credited with £IOOO signed the counterpetition ; and both these petitions were submitted to a person who knew nothing |of this, of course John Smith would appears bloated aristocrat, while Tom Jones would be regarded as a poor'little f fellow who was living in a mud whare. Tins was exactly the position in which the petitioners and counterpetitioners appeared in at Wellington. Those who had signed the original pelitition got credit only for the annual valuation of their properties, while the counterpetitioners copied from the new rate roll, and made themselves appear s . bloated aristocrats. Besides this, names of persons who had no right to sign were put on. For instance, Mr John Paterson valued at £9750, Mr John Talbot about £SOOO, and Mr A. W. Ensor £5020. were put on, but neither of them had a right to sign at all, because they were not householders in Ttrauka. Mr J. T; M, Hayhurst, who owns more property in town than •ny single man, did not sign the njret petition because he was not a householder. These tactics lost the Bqrough, The value of property represented by names on the counterpetition appeared many times larger than that on the original petition, and consequently the Colonial Secretary must Lave thought the poor were trying to force the Borough on the owners of property. If the names of those who had no right to sign it were cut off, the counterpetitiou would not have appeared as big an affair as it did. There is a clause in the Act which gives the Governor power to inquire into the truthfulness of statements made in such petitions, and we submit that thatought to have plied with before the veto was placed on the Borough. However, if these things are represented to tho Colonial Secretary it is probable the whole question may yet be renppnod. md the prayer of the petitioners for the Borough granted.