TECHNICAL SCHOOL

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 857, 1 July 1910, Page 6

TECHNICAL SCHOOL

ANOTHER HOPE QUASHED. The Technical School Board 16 anxioud to be allowed to sub-let the site leased to it by the City Council in Mercer Street, with a view to capitalisation of the rent to enable the board to build a new and larger school in John Street. The obstacle to this plan is a clause in the original lease of tho site from the City Council to the board, which states that the land shall not be used for any other purpose than that of a site for technical instruction. The City Solicitor reported to the City Council last evening that to surrender this lease, or prepare a new lease, would bo illegal, and that the only way in which the position could be met was by a special Bill. Such a measuro was before the House last year, but was withdrawn because it had not then received tho formal approval of tho council.

Councillor Baliinger moved for the reintroduction of last year's Bill this session. He urged that if the motion was not agreed to that night it would be too late to get the Bill through Parliament. Tho Mayor seconded the motion pro forma.

Councillor Lnke moved an amendment approving of the surrender of the lease and providing for tho introduction of a Bill to give the board a new lease for 60 years under conditions that would leave them free to pursue the course desired. Tho Mayor ruled this amendment out of order, 'as conflicting with the City Solicitor's opinion that the lease could not be legally surrendered.

Councillor L'allinger's motion was defeated by a large majority. At a later stage, Councillor M'Laren moved that tho Bill of last session be re-introduced, with the omission of any provisions contained in it for the disposal of the fee simple of the land. He concluded that the objections of tl l /' council were to opinions of that kind. It seemed unfair to another local body that nothing should bo done in Uiis matter. He recognised that the motion could only be put with the consent of all the members of tho council.

Councillor Devine said that he objected to the motion. The Bill did not represent tho present opinions of the council. The motion therefore was not put.