A.—lo.

32

Biccarton — Valuation every three years will not suit suburban districts, the value being chiefly household property, which increases every year. Templeton—As far as this district is concerned, it would be better to remain as at present, the valuation being included in the Clerk's duties. South Waimakariri —Consider the districts should be assessed annually as at present, otherwise this Board will be a loser if the assessments are only made every third year. ATcaroa —No answer. Littlo River —This Bill might answer, but in taking the property-tax valuation it must be borne in mind that this valuation does not include properties of less value than £500. At any rate a number of properties in this district were excluded in the last valuation. Pigeon Bay —No answer. Port Victoria —Peoplo are rated to as great a point as they can stand, and therefore my opinion is: have no County Council, and let the Road Boards proceed as heretofore ; let the Chairmen of the various Boards in a county meet (Bay once in three months) and allocate any funds accruing to them through the Bounty funds j let there be no other expense. AsKburton —Approve of proposal that local bodies should be able to use Government valuations. Wakanui —Object to the Rating Bill. Thoroughly approve of your proposal respecting the making of the valuation rolls. Mount Sorners — That Government valuation be adopted. Geraldine —No answer. Geraldine —The Board approves of the present mode of local valuation. Mount Cook—The multiplicity of valuations is totally unnecessary and wasteful; either the local body should supply the Government with the district valuation for levying property-tax, or the Government

Question 14 — continued.

should, as proposed, send a copy of the property-tax valuation with corrections year by year to the local body. We are much in favour of the local body supplying the Government with tho assessment for pro-perty-tax instead of the reverse 0 .urse proposed, for the local valuers must be much better able to make equitable valuations than strangers. The Government would of course revise the valuations, so all probability of unfair dealing would be prevented. When property changed hands, or a person held property in different districts, we think it would be difficult and expensive for the Government to furnish correct information to the local bodies. Mount Peel —No recommendation. Temuka —The Board agree that it would be highly desirable to make the valuation under the propertytax available for local bodies, and it should be compulsory on them to adopt such valuation. The Board also agree with the provisions of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill as sketched in circular. Weslland —The Rating Bill appears to meet the case of counties on this coast, and the Westhmd Council approve of it. No alterations to suggest. WaitaJci —Disapprove of the Rating Bill. Kakanui —Sketch approved of. Waiareka — Board approves of pro-perty-tax valuation being used, as long as the tax is in force, as sketched in circular. Waitaki —We approve of the Rating Bill as sketched in circular. TVaiTconaiti —None, as no one is of opinion that a great saving will be effected byPalmerston South—None. Waikouaiti —No answer. Maniototo —This Council does not approve of the principle of the Rating Bill, and is of opinion that a return to the system of a fair percentage of the land revenue would better serve the object sought to be attained, at all events, in this county. Peninsula —No answer.

Peninsula—Would suggest no alterations in Rating Bill as in circular. Taieri —We would suggest no alteration in the Rating Bill as in circular, for we are of opinion that a great saving will be effected thereby. Waipori—We consider that no alterations should be made in the present Rating Act. Bruce —Present Rating Act preferable : amended "That valuations stand for three years, with powers to correct same." Crichton—As in circular, but provide for separate valuation where a property extends to two or more districts. Glenledi —We would suggest, no alterations in the Rating Bill as in circular, for we are o£ opinion that a great saving will be effected thereby. Matau —Rating Bill, as sketched in circular, quite satisfactory in our opinion. Mount Stuart—We consider the present mode of rating by local bodies the best, Tokomairiro—We approve of the rating, as sketched in the circular. Clutha —The Council approves of the Rating Bill, as sketched in the circular. Pomahaka—We approve of the Rating Bill, as sketched in the circular. Molyneux South —This Board does not approve of the Rating Bill, as sketched in the circular. Tuapeka —Rating Bill as sketched not required if suggestions herein contained be complied with. Clydevale—No answer. Southland —Present plan of rating to remain unaltered, except that county valuation should be legalized as valuation for Road Boards. Knapdale—That the appointment of valuers rest with the Road Boards. Toitois —The members of the Board approve of the adoption of Government valuation, one member dissenting. Tuturau —County valuation should be sufficient for Road Boards within their boundary.

15. Please state whether the provisions of the Roads Construction and Crown and Native Lands Hating Bills would suit your district, and, if not, what alterations would you suggest which would make these measures more useful ?

Mangonui —The Roads Construction and Crown Lands Rating Bill suit us. We consider the Natives should be made to define their titles and pay rates same as Europeans. Kaeo —We approve of the Roads Construction and Crown Lands Bill. The Natives should pay rates as Europeans. Oruru —Both the Bills would suit our district. Totara —Natives should be made to define their titles and pay rates same as Europeans; otherwise the Bills will suit this district. Holcianga —Would be very satisfactory. All lands, whether Government or Native, or held by Europeans, should be rated. Whangarei —No answer. Maunu—Not to rate at all, or to fix a nominal value only on Native and Government lands for rating purposes is very unfair, especially to districts having a largo portion of such lands. The only fair way is to rate all lands or properties of whatever nature, as all are benefited by

the expenditure on roads, including all reserves, excepting only public school sites, forest reserves, and those for public recreation. Parua —With respect to borrowing from loan for roads and bridges, to be recouped from special rates, we are of opinion it would not suit districts like Ibis, as we have great difficulty in collecting the ordinary rate, which appears to be as much as people can bear. The area of Crown and Native land in this district is very limited, about 2,500 acres, but we consider the measure good. We have no alterations to suggest. Waikiekie —No answer. Waipu Middle —No answer. Waipu South —Consider that colonial lines of road should be laid out by Government engineers independent of local bodies, and constructed under the superintendence of such engineers. Hobson —No answer. Okahu—None. Paparoa —Would suit our district. Wairau —The Roada Construction Bill

I consider very liberal; but I consider 9 per cent, high for paying back principal and intorest of moneys advanced to Road Boards for construction of district roada. Wairau (by ex-Chairman) — There being no Native land, and very little Crown land, iv this riding, that Bill would be praclically inoperative here. The Roads Construction Bill appears to be a measure calculated to afford very efficient aid to local bodies in the construction of many desirable works which, without such assistance, are beyond their means, and it would doubtless be largely availed of by them. Whakahara School Committee —No answer. Sodney —Yes; the Bill generally approved. But the colony should be divided into a number of large districts and a fair proportion of the whole sum voted by Parliament placed to the credit of each such division. The district north of Auckland to form one such division.