The Waikato Argus [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY OCTOBER 15, 1901.

Waikato Argus, Volume XI, Issue 1073, 15 October 1901, Page 2

The Waikato Argus [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY OCTOBER 15, 1901.

After many months, not to say years, of agitation, correspondence, and interviews with regard to the Hamilton traffic bridge, Mr Dyer, the present Mayor of Hamilton, has elicited a promise from the Minister of Lands “ That careful consideration will bo given to your proposal that the Government contribute half the cost of repairing the Hamilton traffic bridge, and if possible provision for the amount will bo made on the Estimates.” Solomon wrote many years ago, “Hope deferred maketh (he heart sick.” The hearts of those who have taken part in local public affairs for some years past must he in the state depicted. It has fallen to Ibo lot of Mr Dyer, the present Mayor of the Borough, to bring the matter nearer to a bead than any of his predecessors have been able to do. There is still an “if” in the matter of the subsidy of £ for £ being placed on the Estimates, IF possible. This matter

has beon so long under the consideration of Ministers that the fact that provision has not been made for this urgent work does not reflect creditably upon the Department over which the Minister for Lands presides, and goes some way towards justifying the statement with regard to that gentleman which appeared in the Lyttelton Times. It reads thus: “The success, if not the existence, of the Liberal Party depends upon a progressive land policy, and neither nature nor education has fitted Mr Duncan for the post of Minister of Lands.” Mr Bard, Government Engineer, has estimated the cost of recon- 1

structing the bridge ac £4OOO. If the promise of the Minister therefore is fulfilled the local bodies will have to find £2OOO, one half by the Hamilton Borough and one quarter each by the Waipa and Waikato Counties. The interest on a loan for £20.00 will entail very little more if as much expenditure as the constant tinkering at the bridge has necessitated for some years past. There should surely be no difficulty in getting the necessary sum passed, as if there is a single work in the colony which should be treated as a colonial work, it is this. The bridge is on the main south road and connects several important districts which are rapidly growing in population and importance. On these grounds we believe that the local bodies interested were quite justified in asking that the bridge should be constructed without imposing additional local taxation. Ministers, however, refused to entertain this request, one reason being given that to do so woidd be to set up a precedent which the finances of the colony would prevent any Ministry acting up to. The life of a wooden bridge is limited to about 2d years, so that there are many in the colony, which were constructed during the Vogel borrowing regime, which require replacing at the present time. The contention of Ministers, therefore, has much to be said in its favour. As we pointed out above, the cost of patching up the present structure amounts to quite as much as will the interest and sinking fund on a £2OOO loan. To continue this process is wasteful and bad finance. Mr Hursthonse only speaks of repairing the present bridge. Engineers who have reported upon its condition, including, wo believe, Mr Hursthonse himself, advocated the building of a new one, and as wo pointed out above, Mr Buret estimates the cost of such a structure at £4OOO.