Page:Ashburton•Scotter•1972.pdf/110

in New Zealand. Its members, moreover, were careful not to interfere with the work of road boards (with one exception) and also levied a very light rate. Yet while the county staff was still rapidly increasing the supply of water and the scope of the races, some road boards made a concerted effort to break up the county. Perhaps the simplicity and cheapness of the system caused farmers to take it for granted too soon. Certainly some of them early objected to paying a water rate because they had dug the races on their own properties.

The move to abolish the council or divide the county arose mainly from financial causes. There was a desire to economise in a time of depression and there were irritations produced by heavier council expenditure. Most immediately perhaps, objections were raised to contributing towards the cost of the new Ashburton traffic bridge.

Significantly, it was Julian Jackson, at the time chairman of the Mount Hutt Road Board (1881-7) who, in May 1884, opened a council debate on the need for ‘a more economical system of local government’.^[1] His motion led to a series of meetings held at various centres, an investigation into possible economies by a committee of the council, and a conference of council and road board members. At the conference, Hugo Friedlander secured strong support for a motion: “That any sub-division of the present County other than dividing it into two Counties [at] the Ashburton river will be prejudicial to the interests of the ratepayers generally.”^[2] This served as a useful rule for the future.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the three members of the conference who voted against Friedlander’s motion represented Mount Hutt Riding and Road Board. Indeed, in the following year (1885) this riding made its first attempt to break away and form a separate county. The County Council successfully opposed this action. Nevertheless, its members equally favoured the local control of expenditure and tried, unsuccessfully, to secure it by persuading Parliament to grant permission for county councils to be composed of road board chairmen, without rating powers.

Three years later (1888) Mount Hutt Riding, in the person of John Holmes, ex-member of Parliament, owner of Viewmount estate and road board member, made a more realistic attempt to put an end to ‘over-government’ and over-expenditure. He pointed out that there were twelve local bodies, costing £2500 to administer, most of them involved in the provision of similar services for