TE RORE BRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1345, 12 February 1881, Page 3

TE RORE BRIDGE.

Sir, —As I have invited discussion as to the merits of the $wo proposed sites for the above' bridge, I suppose I muat reply to the letter of Mr Neil in your issue of the 27th insfc., though I could have wished he had confined his remarks to the discussion of the question at issue, without making use of the opportunity to vent personal ill-feeling. After commencing with a declaration of his intention to speak the strict truth, his first statement is, "Mr McMinn has the daring to say that the majority of the people are for the lower site." A perusal of my letter will show 1 never stated one word on the subject of what site the majerity of the people wished, either directly, or implied. Mr Weil's statement is therefore simply an invention of literary genius. Yet, on the strength of it, he proceeds to preach a homily, embracing the atory of the three tailors of Tooley-street, and ending with some very elaborate arithmetical computations. However, the text having been proved untrue, the after part does not apply. So much for his intention to speak the truth. Mr Neil also implies, that at a meeting at Harapepe I voted for the lower site, but be knowa perfectly well that I positively declined to vote at all, because I stated there, as I have always done, that the advantages of the both sites wore so nearly balanced that the engineering facilities should decide the site, and the question we were asked to voto on did not mvolvo an expenditure of our own money, but of that of the wholo colony. Another statement not qui+e iv accordance with " the strict truth." Further on he states, ''roads were made and hou&es built, on the tinderstanding thai the bridge was to bo at the ferry site." This, also,Jis entirely incorrect. During nearly all the time these roads were being made I had the principal management of all road matters, and J" can therefore assert, with some knowledge of what I am stating, that the question of a bridge in the future never influenced the construction of any road in the slighteht degree, while the simple fact is, that by far the heaviest expenditure was made on a road much nearer the lower site than the upper, though suitable for either. This can be seen by anyone riding through the district. Until the sesiion of 1877, when the vote of £40,000 for roads and bridges in Auckland Province placed nearly £1000 to the credit of the Pirongia District Board, the chances of a bridge were so remote, as never to enter into our calculations. Since then no road works have been undertaken near either site. Another paragraph says, "how did Mr McMinn, as chairman of the Road Board, employ an engineer to take surveys, and fix an estimate of the bridge at the ferry site. Mr McMinn takes care not to mention this." Ceitainly he does for the very simple reason that it is entirely incorrect, The Board never had anything to do with making any survey at either site, from first to last. 1 hope that is distinct enough. Certainly Mr Cterke, when district engineer for Waikato, did take a ceotion of the river, and prepare plans of a bridge for the ferry site, which is quite distinct from where the bridge is intended to be put now, but this was done under instructions from the Public Works Department, probably in response to repeated applications which I, as Chairman of the District Board, had made for the erection of a bridge, both to the General and Provincial Governments, A bridge at the site Mr Clarke chose, and which I suggested would not have cost more than half what the present one will, but that site has been condemned as entirely unsuitable ever since the flood in Jan, '76, which took place shortly after the survey was made. At the same time Mr Clarke informed me, that if called upon for further information on the subject, he should recommend that Whatawhata was the proper place for a bridge which was to be a colonial work. In this I quite concurred with him. The surveys made by Mr Stewarts instructions at both sites, were made at my request, as member for the district, after having secured a grant of £500, subject to the condition that the site and plans wero to be subject to the approval of the District Engineer, but the Board never troubled themselves in the slightest, in connection with the bridge in any way. As for the dodge Mr Neil writes about, and the two men who were going to do themselves a good thing at the expense of other two, I know nothing about either, except that a very good thing has been done for two settlers at Te Rore, (Mr Hodgson and Mr James) by the bridge being settled there, though to do this good thing will cost the colony probably over £1000, and an increased annual charge for ever. I will not trouble you with with further remarks on Mr Neil's letter, and T only ask those of the public who are interested in the question, to form their own opinion fairly and impartially in the question at issue. —I am, &c, Edward G. McMinn.