The Footbridge.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 569, 12 February 1891, Page 3

The Footbridge.

[to the editor,; Sir, —Your correspondent signing himself Borough is wrong in all his premises relating to the position I have taken anent the footbridge. If he had read’ any of my correspondence with his understanding—instead of his eyes—he could not possibly have made so grave a mistake. I will, with your permission, take his charges seriatim. Your correspondent speaks of my throat to apply to the Supreme Court, whereas what I said was that I hoped the Council would not compel those that suffered by the loss of the use of the footbridge to appeal to the Minister of Justice, &e. This cannot be by any inference logically construed into a threat. The Roads and Bridges Amendment Act, 1889, from clause 15 of the Act, strictly defines and fully confirms the relative position any corporate bodies, whether Borough or County Councils, &c., occupy to each other, and plainly states that when any district or districts are mutually convenienced by any roadway or bridge, should any dispute arise anent the maintenance of such road way or bridge, the matter may be referred to the Governor-in-Counoil, who may order the said works or bridge to be constructed, repaired, or maintained at the cost of the public bodies oenvenienoed or benefited thereby, and- the cost of the said work so ordered shall be recoverable in any Court of law, so that if this means anything it means that we are well within our rights if we BO appeal. Mr Sandlant has always thought, and many residents think with him, that Whataupoko Biding ought to bear a fair portion of the cost of the maintenance of the bridge; so that when your correspondent says Mr Sandlant threatens litiga. tion instead of subscribing towards the bridge he makes an unwarrantable statement. Assuming that I was a member of the Borough Council I should certainly uphold the action, in its modified form, the Council has taken in appealing to the Governor for an equitable portion of the maintenance of the bridge to be levied on the County Riding of Whataupoko. He further says if Mr Sandlant’s letter was correct, the Councillors snubbed the Mayor in a most ungsntlemanly manner. No such inference can be legitimately drawn. The Council ruled that I spoke strongly, but not disrespectfully, No demur was made to the ruling. It may be fairly conceded tbat the Councillors as a body are fully as intelligent as the Mayor, Your correspondent does not seem to understand. There is a potency in a determined will, to which all minor forces must bow, whose magnetic influence operates with a silent force that imprints its precepts with an indelible flash upon tbe inner consciousness of those that come within the radius of its influence. Did the Mayor feel it and subside? Who is his champion? It is astonishing what a glamour of consequence worldly acquirements give some men in the eyes of sotae others. If I have any feeling towards the Mayor it is one of respect for his many good qualities, but I do not choose to be sat on by your correspondent. Tbe real point of difference between me and the Council is—l. That the township of Gisborne has been proclaimed a borough 3. That its confines are known and defined, B. That the bridge is within these declared boundaries, and therefore under lhe control ol

tho Council. 4. That it abuts on a legal street and leads to a public reserve. 5. Tbat the Council are strictly within their rights in suing those that damaged the structure, to repair the same, 6. That this view of the question is upheld by the Roads and Bridges Amendment Act of 1889, to which I refer your correspondent. Right here I should like to thank the Editor for the explanation he allowed me to insert in his Saturday’s issue, which must convince any and all that the Editor of the Standard is willing to give fair play.—l am, etc,, J. Sandlant.