Wanganui Chonicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DISE SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1882.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 9662, 3 November 1882, Page 2

Wanganui Chonicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DISE SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1882.

I Tub matter of the £17,000, voted last session to free the Wanganui bridge from tolls, is at a stand still. We are led to believe that the Government will make no concession with regard to the terms. They say that ' Parliament voted the money for the purpose oi giving the people a free bridge, and that it is impossible to abandon or modify that condition. We understand that Mr Watt, when he visited Wellington some little time ago, saw the Premier, who 1 Btated plainly that he could not see his way to fall in with the views of the Harbour Board and the deputation of settlert. So far as we can ascertain, the Board are merely waiting, though we do not exactly know for what. The time for paying over to the Government the £17,000 now lying in the bank is in February next ; and the lease of the tolls expires at the end of March. If ii were not for the lease -we suppose the Board could if they chose at once come to terms with the Governmenl • — that is, make the bridge free, and take the £17,000 now lying in b the bank. The transaction intended by the Legislature would then c be complete. But if, on the one . hand, the Government will not meet the board half-way, by consenting to half tolls now and total remission after the lapse of some years, the board, on the other, will probably , decline to take the £17,000 and give up revenue to which they are entitled by statute. The power to levy tolls was continued by "The Wanganui Bridge and Wharf Act, 1872," and again by " The Wanganui Harbour and Hiver Conservators Board Act, 1876," and still belongs to the Harbsi Board. The fact of Parliament hay- , ing voted £17,000 to free the bridge from tolls does not alter the position, unless the Board choose to fall in with the arrangement. Evidently those who believe that the Board cannot help themselves, but must <■ perforco take the money and free the bridge, are altogether in error ; and it is possible that when thi.s is . generally understood it may facilitate ' the making of some satisfactory arrangement to which the Harbour Board, the Borougti Council, and the County Council would all be parties. A fow weeks ago we published a letter from Mr Thatchor, in vr h; f:h ho smggestod that something ol }-.*> . "\ might be done. It may bet.."' dismissed tho proposal rather t ,-,i curtly. Mr Thatcher's idea was that r a small addition to the rates of the district miyht bo liiado, and the

Board's loss by the freeing of the bridge be thus recouped. We ex- * pressed a doubt whether such a rate could be imposed without further legislation, and pointed out that the i impost would be decidedly unpopular. "With regard to the rate, we take it for granted that legislation would be required before the Borough Ooun-il or Oouuty Council could raise funds to be handed over to the II irbour Board, or could devote any j>.irb of the ordinary revenue to tho same purpose, On the other point, that is, as to the unpopularity of such a rate or contribution, there is this to be said : if the Government could and would free the bridge without reference to the wishes and necessities of the Harbour Board, it is very questionable whether the settlers would come to the rescue and offer to make good a proportion of the abolished tolls ; but if it is clearly understood that the Board are in fact masters of the situation, and can either continue the tolls and let the arrangement about the £17,000 fall through, or can close with the offer of the Government • and make the bridge free on condition that the loss be borne jointly by the Board, the County Council, and the Borough Council, then perhaps tho settlers might be prepared to listen to reason. We do not intend to again state the case of the Board. It is pretty well understood by this time, and it is admitted that their revenue, if doled out in the most economical manner, is barely sufficient to meet the legitimate demands on it. To take the foreshore, to sweep away the tolls, to call on the Harbour Board to keep the bridge in good repair in perpetuity, and, as an equivalent for all, offer them £17,000, is something worse than illiberal dealing. It is unreasonable and unfair, and as such should, be strenuously resisted. If the tolls are abolished we suppose tho Harbour Board must be content to suffer some loss ; but if the County would contribute £400, and the Borough £300, an amicable settlement might perhaps be arrived at. Still legislation would be required, but under all the circumstances, and if the wish of the inhabitant, was clearly - expressed in the matter, we do not see why the Government should stind in the way.