THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8264, 18 October 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1906.

It seems that finality in regard to the Waipoua Bridges question Is not so very far distant, and the manner of the settlement of the question promises to be of a highly satisfffctory oharaoter. The Masterton County Council have very steadfastly set their face against the proposed improvements in connection with the Waipona Bridges, and if they had tbe power there is no doubt hut that they would stay the reforming hand. However, it is pleasing to realise tba'; under one of the beneficient laws of this country the capacity of the Masterton County Oouncil to obstruct necessary and desirable improvements is so limited as not to be at all serious. There is every reason to hope that "the northern approach" will be widened, and that tbe Waipoua Bridges will be, practically, reconstructed' at no very distant date, and that the County Oouncil will, as it ought to do, contribute a fair sbare towards the cost of an entirely desirable expenditure. No doubt tbe residents of Lansdowne will be very largely benefited by the proposed improvements, and they should appredate the action thpt the Masterton Borough Oouncil lisb adopted throughout in regard to "the northern approach" question. Like the Chamber of [Commerce and the deputation of Lansdowno residents

that waited upon the County Oounoil, the Mast«rton Borough Council has been unable to move tbe County Council to take a reasonable view of the position. It seems, bowever, that there is an "intervening angel" in the person of the Minister for Public Works, and the Masterton Borough Council, at the special meeting, which is to be held to-mor-row evening, should decide upon such a course of aotion as will, practically, settle "the northern approach" question.

The Minister has written that if the work was purely one of maintenance a Ootnmisbion oan be set up without delay, but that if the work to be done to the road partakes of tbe nature of reconstruction, and if the bridges need reconstructing, then the procedure set forth in section 118 of the Aot will have to be followed before any attempt to set up a Commission is possible. It is, therefore, suggested that tbe , Eorongh Couuoii should prepare I plans, specifications and so forth, and submit them to the Minister for bis approval. The question then arises whether the work would be carried out by the Public Works Department, or by tbe Masterton Borough Council. It seems certain whichever course is followed a Commission will be set up to determine the respective cost of each local body interested in the work. It would appear, however, that if the Borough Counoii carried out the work that tbey would figure sumewhat as trespassers on the County Council's "preserves," but be this as it may there is apparently no doubt that the Minister ior Public Works will se\that the iesired improvements are effflcted. However, it would probably be more satisfactory if the work were carried out the Public Works Department, and it has been suggested to us that sub-olause 10 of section 119 of the Public Works Act proviles the necessary authority. The material portion of the clause referred to reads as follows-—"ln case any local authority, or local authorities, refuses or uegifluta to maintain, make, improve, or repair any bridge. . . under its or their care, control and management, or to reconstruct any such bridge. . . . . when requisite, the Minister may undertake such maintenance, repairs, improvements, or reconstruction in the plaoe of the local authority, or local authorities, so refusing or neglecting as aforesaid, and may provide for the care, working or management, of such bridge. ... and may recover all costs. . . . from such local authority, or authorities."