COUNTY COUNCIL v. ROAD BOARD.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2592, 7 May 1887, Page 2

COUNTY COUNCIL v. ROAD BOARD.

[To the Editor.] Sir,—The latest move on tho part of the Council is issuing a letter to the several Road Boards in the county suggesting that the latter should levy the maximum rate, and hand over so mftcli of the said rate to the Council. I look upon it as an augury for good, and I am sanguine enough to supposo that- Councillors are begetting a proper framo of mind on the question of local government. Councillors, I should have said a majority of thorn, have ridden the high horse, but the fact is dawning on their hitherto much obscured vision, that Road Boards hold a stronger position in tho country than-some Councillors desire or are aware of. The reception accorded to the previous overture on the part of the Council, some two or three years ago, in requesting the Road Board to wipe off the debt for it, evoked such almost silent contempt from Road Boards that the Counoil might well have paused before entering a second tirao on similar ground. The rosult this time, I anticipate, will be tho samp, and it is to be hoped that Road Boards will speak with no uncertain sound, and for once let Councillors understand that Road Board members are quite as capable men as County Councillors, and can expend all the rates they choose to' levy as judiciously, to say tho least, as County Councillors. I have already said that I look upon this last proposal as an augury for good, notwithstanding that I am satisfied Road Boards will spurn the suggestion, at the same time it points to a desire—at least I hope 60—on the part of the Council to approach Beards in an earnest effort that both should work in harmony in 'Carrying on the local Government of the County. Road Boards may be averse to levying highrates for the purpose of assisting tho Council in the manner indicated, but I see no.reason why Boards should not levy the maximum rate and thereby placo tho districts in a position to claim the full Government subsidy. This can be done-by the Council handing over certain maintenance works to the Boards, instead of Councillors persisting as they are doing, that tho maintenance of all County roads must be in their own hands. A request was roeen'tly made by the Eketahuna Board in this direction, but the Councillors could not accede to the request, for the Counties Act prohibited such (?) I am certain it does not, and it is only the unwillingness of Councillors to meet Boards, such as the Eketahuna one,' that prevents this. lam persuaded that in the case of Alfredton, Akitio, Eketahuna and Mauriceville, the maintenance of all roads would be infinitely better, and much more economically attended to by the respective Boards. I would suggest that, as Councillors cm not or will not move unless by force, that the latter alternative be adopted by these districts under section 247 of the 1 Counties Act,' 1886, for upon this section Councillors take their, stand, I hear.

In conclusion, after once approaching tlie Boards and being alive to the advantage of securing the full Government subsidy, on Councillors must now rest the blame if Boards are allowed to levy a small rate, and thoreby lose the full subsidy to the districts, for Boards will naturally only levy their own requirements unless Councillors make an earnest effort to consult the wishes of the Boards. I am, &e., Via Media. May 4th, 1887,