IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) &?^ V.A 1.0 I.I 1.25 |iO '""5^^ •" ISA It: lAO 1^ ,_ 6" M 2.0 i.8 M. ■ 1.6 V] signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". Mapa, plataa, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper 3, be divided according to the number of milei io each county, and alio la apportioning the tolls between the respecttve counties ihao each be credited with the amount of toll received at the different gates in the county The total amount p-e amount paid to the county of Middlesex, shows a balance as against the road of $11,414. Onihel6raday of Feb nary, in the year 1857, the county council leas d all of tbe roads, brldgi s, cDlvertg, toll houses, toll barns, and all rights aod privilexes and appurtenances of ♦he same to Robert Hepburn, cf the town^bip ot Yarmouth, for 199 years from the said date, for the sum of £1,010, or $16,i 40, p yable during twenty years, wit/h Intereat at 5 per cent The la^t pa/ment was made on tbe 23rd day of January, 1876 ; the total payments, principal and interest, amounted to $25,180. About the year 1875 or 1876 si-ma nemb is of the county council ascertained that tl»o county of Middlesex did not pay to the Dominion Government the amiunt provided lor in order- incounoll above r ferred lo, and believi g tha^ as the county of Middlesex had not paid for the »oad, th y tbouU refund to the county of Elgin the amount charged thert f jre in said settlement of debt at t e dissolution o' tbe counties. Con Iderable corresponu - nee was entered Into b tween ihe wo counties, and on one occasion a meeting of jjlnt committees was be d, and the county tf KUin agreed to accept the principal su n of $8,220 Id settlement Of their claim agii jsi Middlesex, The Mldd e ■ex oonimlttee reported that ib y were not in favorofnfui dug the money, that th y were etiUliable to tbeQeveinmeut. and would pay over the amount when called vpon by the Oovi-rnment. The n atter was brought before the Local House by Mr. Hodgtnp, then member for West Elgin, and an Invesi^ation made as to the exact pot Ition of the account b tween the Qovernment and tbe county of Middles x, but owing to tbe cbtnge that aroje br the Cottfedt ration of the Pr vinoea and the traag. fee of the documents relating to each province, pat'Uculara in reference to the accounts were not forthcoming, Ihe county counoll, at a later date, consulted the late James Bethnne, Q 10, ol Toronto, who advised ibem that tbe county ot Elgin had no ol im agal.g' the coi2nty of Middlesex, that the county ot Mid- dlesex might be called ui/on to pay the ainonut at any time. Ihisendeltbe dispute between the two counties in reference to the amount) paid for the London and Port Utauley gravel road. Various committees have been appu^nted from time to time to coiiBlder the advisabiUty of purchasing ihd lease of the gravel rojul fromtbi lessee, and removiag the oil, and as theJnnes sslon of the county council the r port of a spei ml committee appointed to etqnlre Into the advloablllt> cf punhaala* tha Loudon and Port Stanley gravel road was presented, amended In committee of the whole and adovted as foluwa : "I'hat ,hla counoU pay one half the purchase money for the Lon- don and Port Stanley g.avel rood ; providing the 11. unipipallties of Yarmouth and tjoatb- wold and the cliy of Sc. Tuomos mane up the other half, and provided the road can be boughi at a reasonable price, not to exceed $14,060, auo that tbe u atter lo laid over until the Nuvembur session to give the represeuta- lives of the InteTesttdmuuicipalilles time to ooi,fer with their coosti.uenti and wUh the owners of the road, and that Bayham pay one thud and the oo.nty the balai,oe of the cost of thslr road. In looking through an iniix ot the etatntei for any poB»lble legklation effecting this road, I find that on tbe Wlb of May, 1863, an act was paraed to coatioue in the corporation of tnu county of Elgin the management and control ot that portion of tne London and Port btanlry roadlylng wUhln tbelimiceof ihe city ot Be. Thomas, no onat ii U poMlble that if the tolls are removed wltt-ouj an express agitement trom the city of St. Thomas in rtferenoe to the maintenance of their share ot ihe roads and bridges with n the corporatlor, the same as if the act had not been passed, the county might still oe n quired lo wholly maintain sold loads and bridged. Statement shonlng the position of the gravel road account considering compound interest onine re, which represtnts the amount with Interest added that tbe ooun y bos recelvea from tbe road. This, of course, should be credited to tbe different muniolpi\lltle8 each yiar la same proportion as thdV ^aid county rates. The average p-oportlons paid by the town, sbipi of Yarmouth and South wold during said 114 years Is about three-eighls ot whole county rateso that :hepse towuships have received $3,141 of amount to oredit of the road account, leaving a balance of $5,238 divided among ihg remaining munlclpiklltles. K. W. MoBay. County Oleik. St. Thomai, Aug 13, 1892.