THE MANAWATU BRIDGE.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 161, 14 September 1881, Page 2

THE MANAWATU BRIDGE.

• V.')'l ', ''. : : /l TO THE EDITOB. ; ,Sib.— r^F.r,«ni,^aur^«port m Saturday V i§s,ue, of the. Borough Council meeting, Ifappe.arl'^thkt^one' 8f the Conncillora bnV l<i t'hr^aterifed repudiation on B^|j^ of the County," .m !vohpection wit^^S uece'siafyxejEairfpftheManawatu Bridge. The threat is an idle one, a« -^11l be seen by reference to clause 34 of "The Public Works— Aet—Amendiment Act, 1878,'* which appears so .exactly to fit the case as to Suggest that the^ramer of the clause bad the SCanavjatu Bridge m view when he drew it tfpV^'The clause says:— "34, Jf a.fbridge^ferryjjpr?^ j|grd crosses a river where one bank thereof is situate m a Borough >=arickt he other bank thereof i» situatejnj a. pountj, the Minister may direct which local "Body shall have the control-thereoF;; but the .cost of constructing or maintaining any such bridge, ferry, W'taru" 1 snS|F?Be contributed to pro rafa,. m to the rateable values of property m such' Borough and C nn'y respectively j-and such contribution ni ay be retro vrred m any Court of competent jimsdictionCßy the Borough or. County having thel control of such Hridge, ; fesrfy/' div'fpr'djilrrom the other locaLrfftverning body, as the case may be" -That; clause not only settles the question of the^liabih'ty *«f 'the 5 County Council, <btit :alsottprovides -that its contribution | shall , be ( to the rateable vahfe^ofthe County as compared with the Borough— a point'of; considerable financial importance to the Borough, as you will a> once see. I am informed the control of the'bridge ■ has beem vested m the Bi»ro,ugh Council, which manifestly, has full power, to, undertake at once the necessary" repair*. s It"T»ill therefore be seen that the; threat reported to have beep made^is not straw. I trust you will 'excuse my writing upon a local mntter,- but the tone of the discussion led to the bdie.fjthat J -thejclause.quoted above. h-«l been overlooked. Hoping an amicable: and satisfactory settlement will be secured, I ani" &*., ' • •■ &iJWA&KEt& SUSSBLL. P.oxton,Sep j t. ;i l§thJißßl. ' [Mr. Ilusseli is perfeeily right, as is also the extract as far as it goea. But we think -he— scarcely— understands the : question/at issue —^which is not merely one of reparation of damages, but additions to the structure by the erection of an extra spjra or two, for which the Act makeff.nppro^ilioj? whatever, and the expense of which" can only be levied •with the consent =of the County Council.. It is'truejithe clausje sjiys eonttruetingy but it is an open question whether additions could be dealt with unde* that heading. F». ;i^. T.]