The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1885. THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1347, 30 May 1885, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1885. THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

Mr John Talc.»t at tire annual meeting ot tbe ratepayers of tbe 'I emuka Road Board, delivered himself of a very elaborate statement on the separation of the Levels riding from the County of Gera'dine. He said there was no reason to doubt but that the movement would bo successful, and appeared to think it a matter of indiflVreoce as regards the rest of the County, as the County Council had never done anything worthy of notice with the 'exception of the Opihi Bridge. It this were all tbe Council had done, there are many who would feel thankful to them for even that. The construction of that bridge, and the recent additions which have been built, are no small matters to the people of this district, They bad been long enough risking their lives in tbe Opihi Hirer, and to find it spanned by a substantial structure now is not at all a small mattter. Mr Talbot’s memory, however, must have treated him very treacherously when he said this was the only work the Council had done. The statement is true to some extent; it is the only work that has been carried out under the Council's supervision, but it is not the only work it had to pay for. Will Mr Talbot remember what the Council had to pay for the Rangitata bridge ? also, who would have had to pay if the Council bad not bgen in existence ? This appears to us a question of great importance in discussing the severance of the County, but it is one which Mr Talbot left completely out of sight. It did not enter into bis calculations at all, he paid no attention to it; yet we think that a careful consideration of the subject will enable many to realise that the Rangitata Bridge is still a matter that might be discussed in connection with the separation of the Ooun’y. It was Mr C. G. Tripp, we believe, who, when Chairman of the Council investigated the subject, and found that the Levels Riding had contributed to the traffic on the Rangitata Bridge as largely, if not more largely, than any other riding of the County, and that the Mount Cook County, then a riding of the Geraldine County, came next. Now the Mount Cook Riding has severed from the County, and tbe Levels Riding is going to follow suit, and if Mr Talbot’s suggestions are adopted the three remaining ridings will separate from each other, and break up into infinitesimal bits. Now, what is this all going to come to ? Who will take charge of large bridges, and what controlling power will there be to step in, when two small local bodies disagree with regard to the construction or maintenance of a bridge or a boundary road between them ? It is not long ago since we had an instance of how these small bodies try to best ” each other, and also since Mr Talbot himself bore testimony to the usefulness r f the Council, when be said tbe O.dhi Bridge would never have been constructed only for it. Now the Opihi and Rangitata Bridges have been built, and they are a source of no trouble for the time being, but the day is not far distant when it will be necessary to look after them again. Who will then look after them? Is the little patch cf County included in the Temuka Road District to keep up the Opihi and other bridges within its limits? and are the barren bills of Mount Peel to be saddled with the maintenance of sucha gigantic work as the Rangitata Bridge?—when every district in South Canterbury is continually making use of these bridges ? Mount Cook was allowed to slide out of all responsibility before, the Levels are to be allowed to withdraw next, and then the three road districts remaining will sever from each other. All this must, eventually result in the utter incapacity of the smaller local bodies to maintain these large bridges, and tbe consequence will be that in the course of time they will become unfit for traffic. Even if this were not so, it is manifestly wrong to saddle any small district with large works in which the whole of the original County is interested. It was wrong to allow Mount Cook to separate in the first instance without it having agreed to contribute its share towards these works, and it is wrong to allow the Levels now to take itself away, unless it still agrees to be responsible for such works as these. Let the Levels separate by all means. It is a bankrupt road district—or, if not, very nearly so—but let the separation be conditional on being sabj ct to rates for the maintenance of these great connecting links. And, again, if the Mount Cook people were treated as their selfishness deserves toll-gates would be placed on the highways by which they reach the outer world, and they would be compelled to pay tolls, as they are not honest enough to pay the rates for the maintenance of these highways. We now direct our reader’s attention to these facts. The Levels district is trying to separate so as to avoid paying rates for the Rangitata and other bridges in this district, and it is the business of the people in this district to look > fier their own interests. A counter-petition ought to be got up at once pointing out the injustice ot this, and praying that the Levels district may still be held liable to rates for such works as the Rangitata Bridge.