The Wairoa Bell AND Hobson County Gazette FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15th.

Wairoa Bell, Volume V, Issue 228, 15 December 1893, Page 7

The Wairoa Bell AND Hobson County Gazette FRIDA Y, DECEMBER 15th.

LEASING OF THE DARGAVILLE FORESHOR 1 . This question lias been exercising the public mind pretty freely of late and it may not be out of place for us to put a plain statement of the facts of the matter before our readers. The Hobson County Council possesses various roads and foreshores in different parts of the County, aud the Council elected to look after the finances of the County has sought to realise any revenue that was justly theirs. In earlier clays, when Mr J. M. Dargaville was a Councillor, the interests of ratepayers as a whole were not so well looked after, and the Council received no revenue from the wharves which it. had to maintain, none from the vehicles which cut up the roads they formed, none from the many pieces of their property here anu there which were privately occupied, and there were several big leakages of revenue in other ways which the present more energetic Councillors have put a stop to. Cr. T. Bassett was the first mover in securing a revenue from our wharves, which is about the largest item secured, but we must confine ourselves to the foreshore question „ Well, the Council decided that private persons who desired to occupy a portion of the County roads or foreshores should contribute something towards the revenue for the privileges obtained. The law’ stipulates that any port'on of a road not required for immediate use may he leased by the Council for a term not exceeding 21 years. The practice of leasing these unused County lands is not a new one now proposed, for we could name several instances in which the Council has leased such portions. For instance a few years ago Mr P. Moloughney by himself coming forward with a handsome contribution of £BO (nearly half the cost) induced the Council to erect a wharf at Tikinui. Very shortly afterwards Mr Dar-o-aville went into the gum trade, and in order that he might go into competition with Mr Moloughney in gumbuying at Tikinui he applied to the Council and got permission to erect a receiving shed on the road close to Tikinui wharf, and was thus enabled to enter into competition with Mr Moloughney almost at his own door, and reap the benefit of that gehtleinan’s expenditure on the wharf and to which he con tributed nothing but a paltry ten shillings per annum for rent of land occupied. Mr Moloughney must have felt that he was being somewhat harshly treated bat as far as we know he made no complaint, and the practice of leasing these unused pieces of land has gone on without complaint till the present. In the ordinary course of events Mr Spiers applied for the granting of a similar right to him as had been granted to Mr JDargaville at Tikinui The Council evidently thinking that others probably would be desirous of obtaining what Mr Spiers asked for, the neighbourhood being & more populous one, did not grant his re-

quest offhanded as bad been done in other eases, but decided to cell tenders for the right to occupy the section applied for Mr Dargaville probably feeling that the lotting' of the foreshore in this particular spot would mean the bicaking down of his monopoly in the Darg’aville township, now strongly objected and threatened the Council with enormous law costs if they proceeded. Before the Council could go any fartner in their action they received notice from the '.trustees of the Dargaville estate of an action in the Supreme Court to restrain them from acting. t his the Council had to defend and in doing so have been mulcted in costs amounting to about £SB, the decision of Judge Oonolly resulting rn the issue of a writ of injunction against the Council. The advice of the gentlemen at the head of the legal profession in Auckland strongly urges upon the Council the wisdom of appealing, and the matter again came before the Council ©n Wednesday. Then the pros and cons seemed to be—if an appeal were successfully made then the Council would be refunded the greater part of the costs already incurred and an increase of revenue amounting to at least £IOO per annum could be secured. On the other hand if the appeal failed the Council would be mulcted in further costs amounting to at least £so,and probably as much as £BO. On theone side there was the best legal advice procurable in favour of appeal, and on the other threats of enormous costs and what can best be described by the term “ bounce.” The risk made the decision an important one, as the present Council more than any of its predecessors is specially desirous that the ratepayers’ money shall be wisely spent. Three of the Councillors very generously offered to deposit £4O with the County Funci if the appeal should be unsuccessfully made, rather than the ratepayers should lose the prospective increase of revenue for want of funds to see the matter out. The Council decided to go on with the appeal as soon as the £4O promised had been de posited and there the matter stands at present. Ratepayers generally will appreciate the pluck of those Councillors who for the public good are willing to risk so much personally