PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1601, 7 October 1882, Page 2

PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF HAMIL TON.

At tho adjourned meeting of the Borough Council, held on Thursday evening, at which all the members with the exception of Cr. Lovett were present, the question of abolishing the borough and substituting for it two town districts, raised by Cr. Yon Stunner, was brought on for consideration. Cr. Yon Stunner moved the resolution of which he had given notice, and which is as follows :—": — " That the object for which Hamilton was constituted a borough, namely, the construction of a free bridge over the Waikato, having been accomplished, and a measure of local self-government, the Town Dis tnctsAct, 1881, having been meantime passed by the Legislature, it is desirable that this council take the necessary initiative steps to have the corporation of the Borough of Hamilton dissolved, with a view to allow the separate portions of West and East Hamilton the opportunity of being constituted town districts, under the above-mentioned Act." He said he did not intend to say very much, because lie believed the councillors had already formed their opinions on the subject. It would be .advisable to go into committee in order to discuss the question fully and freely, because it was a very important question and one which they should not decide hastily. He believed it was the feeling of the council that the matter should be relegated to a committee to determine what position the borough would occupy in the event of tho resolution being carried, with a view to laying the information so collected before a public meeting of the ratepayers, after which a poll would be taken for the guidance of the council. He had brought the question forward in obedience to the wish of many of those who voted for him at the late election, but he did not hold bigoted views regarding it, and could not say how he was going to vote. Indeed, when he came to make fuller enquiries, he found that the change which he proposed would not be so beneficial as he had at first believed. It would be only a change in name, as a town district possessed nearly all the powers of a corporation. There would, however, be a saving in departmental expenses. Parts XL and XII. of the Municipal Corporations Act, which gave large powers, were incorporated with the Town Districts Act, as also were parts 111. and IV. of the Public Works Act. The former bestowed the necessary borrowing powers, and gave -the board control over all matters of social economy. It had been stated that by dissolving the borough they would rid themselves of the burden of keeping the main road and bridge in repair — that was the general belief ; but there were very grave doubts about it. An attempt had been made to put the word "maintenance," as applied to main roads, into the Roads and Bridges Construction Act, 1882, but, it, had failed. It was true that in the ' event of a bridge being destroyedin aitown district the Government would replace it, but they would also tlo this in boroughs containing a population

of not more than 4000, and as Hamilton was not likely to have that number of inhabitants for some years the advantage was a very doubtful one. By clause 34, town district boards were deprived of the control of all main and county roads through the district ; they mi»ht therefore get rid of the bridge in that way. But the county council had the power to levy a special rate for works in any particular portion of the county, which money would perhaps be spent in a manner contrary to the wish ot the townspeople, so that here again it was doubtful whether any good would result from the change. All these things must be taken into account. After pointing out that the act made the necessary provision for enabling them to revert to a borough if they found the Town Districts Act inadequate, he said he would be glad to hear the opinions of other councillors. — Cr.Bradley seconded the motion pro forma. — Cr. Jones said if they carried the motion as it stood they would be taking the matter entirely out of the hands of the ratepayers. He would move as an amendment, " That consideration of the matter be deferred until the bridge is declared free, the result of the £110 award made known, and the drainage scheme decided one way or the other."— Cr. McDonald seconded the amendment. — Cr. Yon Stunner explained that it was not his intention to push the resolution that night. All he desired was to see the subject discussed in committee, and after some further discussion on this point, Cr. Jones consented to withdraw his amendment. — The Council then went into committee. A short discussion ensued, the opinion generally expressed being that the council should not decide hastily on a matter of such importance to the town. The absence of reliable data upon which to go was pointed out, and Cr. Gandiii moved and (Jr. Peat seconded, "That a committee consisting of Crs. Yon Sturuier, Cochrane, Bradley, McDonald, Jonej and Peat, be appointed to report on the subject."'— Cr. Bradley was strongly opposed to the appointment of a committee. He thought the Mayor should at once call a public meeting of the burgesses to discuss the question, and moved an amendment to that effect, which was seconded by Cr. Tippen. — The Mayor strongly disapproved of calling a meeting before they were in a position to lay a full statement before the ratepayeis. He confessed to entertaining a very poor opinion of public meetings, such as they had witnessed in Hamilton ot late. — On being put to the meeting there voted for the amendment, Crs. Bradley, Tippen and Yon Stunner ; and for the motion, the Mayor, Crs. Peat, Jones, McDonald, Gaudin and Cochrane. — The motion was accordingly carried, and it was agreed that the committee bring up their report at the next meating but one, in order to allow of the halfyearly accounts being completed.