The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1911. INSANITARY DWELLINGS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1106, 20 April 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1911. INSANITARY DWELLINGS.

We are not without hope that the example of the Labour party and the force of public opinion will induce the whole of the silent section of the Council candidates to take citizens into their coafidencs as to their views on municipal matters. There arc no fewer than 36 candidates to choose from, and the electors having so wide a choice can afford to pass over those who veil their views with secrecy. Strangely enough none of the candidates, so far as we have noted, has touched on the question of insanitary dwellings. The condition of Wellington in regard to insanitary dwellings (and also some stores and shops) cannot fairly be described as satisfactory. Those who have occasion to visit houses in the poorer districts hare expressed the opinion that the percentage of dwellinghouscs. still inhabited, though really unfit for the purpose, is unduly large for a modern city, and especially for one that should show a good example to the other cities of the Dominion. In saying this we do not refer so much to houses that from a strict sanitary point of view are honestly capable of being made fit again for occupation (though that class must also !oe dealt with), as to those which, through age, or neglect, or bad materials, can never be made satisfactory. There are districts in this city where hcuses of this latter class are much in evidence. Their condition is such that it is surprising to find that even what is called a low rent induces any tenant to take one of them. "With leaky roofs, leaky walls, leaky window sashes and frames, neglected conveniences, and back-yards and side-passages innocent of any sort of paving or surface drainage, and therefore flooded with rain-water after every sharp shower, they long ago earned a place on the • Council's list' of condemned properties. We should much like to sec a return showing—(l) The Council'! reading of its existing powers oi ordering renovation, or condemnation. (2) The' nature of the machinery for, and the strength of, the staff actually and' regularly employed in setting those powers in motion. (3) A' detailed list (with dates) of the houses condemned or ordered to bo renovated in each of the last three years, with names of owners, and whether holding beneficially or as trustees. (-1) The dates when each was cither pulled down or renovated. (5) How many visits per annum the city inspectors pay to the class of property dealt with in this article. The fourth requisition is made because there is an impression abroad that to condemn a house is to endow it with a new lease of life. The impression, no doubt, is a mistaken one, but it is well that it should be authoritatively disproved. In the' Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1908, which Mr. Sidey introduced last session (Hansard, vol. 150, p. 723-749), he proposed to repeal the existing Section 90, which provides that : a building cannot bo condemned or pulled down until tTie order of a stipendiary magistrate has been obtained. As a substitute he proposed, under certain safeguards, that where the District Health Officer the Council concurred in the condemnation the stipendiary magistrate's order would be ■made as a matter of course," on proof of service of all proper notices, and that where they did not agree the present procedure should be retained. The weak point of the Bill was that it made no real provision for the hearing of objections. We heartily concur in . Me. Sidey's proposal that when the "expert" and the Council agree the building should go, as'a matter "of course," for it is clear that in such an event it must be in an uncommonly bad condition. But we should like tp see the District Health Officer put in a much stronger position, when, it may be by a small and not wholly disinterested majority of the Council, that body fails to concur in his opinion. As regards objections (appeals is ; perhaps, the better word), we would greatly prefer that they should bn taken by a Judge of the Supreme Court, because Me. Sidey claims , with inherent probability that in too many cases inexperienced, "removable" stipendiary magistrates give undue weight to non-expert and interested evidence as against the evidence of the trained man. Further, in those cases where, in the opinion of the District Health Officer, the building can be repaired, we would give him power to make such an order, specifying his requirements and fixing a time for their completion. Default in complying with his order should throw on the Council the imperative duty of carrying it out forthwith, and the expense should be a first charge on the property. It follows from what we have just said that all notices must also be served oh registered mortgagees. Fairness to the latter cla_ss demands this, for as the expense incurred by the Council wqukC until paid, take priority of existing mortgages, the holders.of these ought to have early notice of the possibly altered posv tion of their securities.

Something more than Mr. Sidey,'s amendments is needed, however, before this most important of subjects is placed in its proper position._ The test to bo applied by the District Health Officer should be made more severe, should be brought more into line with modem requirements, than, judging by results, it is at present. Less weight should be attached to the age that the venerable building has succeeded in attaining, and more to the points in which it falls below the standard set by modern sanitary science, and the building by-laws should be made more stringent as regards materials, surface drainage, and paved yards and passages. Meanwhile public opinion should call on the Council to institute a special, prompt, and strict examination by the Health Officer of certain well-known local areas, and of houses in other likely parts, and should insist that the Council furnish and publish every quarter a detailed report of the work done during the period just ended. Mn. Sidey's Bill will doubtless be reintroduced next session, and, if only because it seeks to strengthen the hands of the District Health Officer, who should be peculiarly the officer of the people, and not of the officials who appoint him, we hope that all Council candidates will give the question their attention and express their views thereon-

BRITAIN AND HER ALIENS,

The more stringent law dealing with alien immigration into Britain, announced in one of.our cable messages to-day, is a natural result of the outrages in London Inst January. Such a law has long been required, for the Aliens Act of 1905 has been found inadequate to keep out the large number of criminals and undesirables amongst the halfmillion or so of emigrants from Europe who pour annually into the United Kingdom, and powerless effectually to expel those aliens who, after admission, render themselves liable to deportation. The Act was not popular with the Liberals—the present Home Secretary strongly opposed it—on account of what was considered the anti-Liberal policy of closing the door of Britain against anybody, and yet it was extremely mild owing to the large powers df exemption given to the Home Secretary. In actual working, it is practically only aliens arriving from European and Mediterranean ports who are subject to inspection, and of these only a very small proportion arc actually inspected. Amongst the classes exempted from inspection are cabin passengers, arrivals from "extra-European" ports, secondclass passengers, transmigrants, those holding return tickets, aliens returning to their homes in Britain, religious' and political refugees, and passengers in "non-immigrant ships." Originally "non-immigrant ships" were those carrying not less than 12 alien steerage passengers, but the number was later raised to 21, thus extending very greatly the area of exemption. During 1909 no fewer than 134,718 aliens avoided inspection by arriving in non-immigrant ships, and of these it is safe to say that a great many would have been rejected if the vessels had been subject to inspection. The actual result of the administration of the Act in 1909 was that of 534,805 alien passengers admitted into Britain only 11,930 were submitted to the tests imposed by the Act, and of this number 1456 were refused permission to land. Tlio grounds of rejection are: Want of means, lunacy, disease, and criminality. The bulk of those rejected are turned back on the first of these four grounds. The magnitude of the. annual influx makes thorough supervision extremely difficult, but even the existing powers of the authorities might bo more efficiently exercised. Where

an alien is convicted of a crime pun-

ishable by imprisonment without the option of a hnc the Court may recommend his expulsion from the country, but it rests with the Home Secretary whether expulsion shall be carried out. In 1909 no fewer than 2000 aliens were convicted of crime, and only one in five ■was expelled. A great impetus was given to the import of criminal aliens by the action of Loud Gladstone in making it known that an alien immigrant claiming to be a political refugee was to liavc the benefit of the doubt. The'easy-going character of Britain, and the rather foolish boast of soma Englishmen that Britain is free soil for all have mado her a sanctuary for the worst scum of Europe, greatly to the annoyance of the Continental nations, who _ arc thus hampered in dealing with Anarchist plots and plotters. When an alien is expelled, ■he may" find, on his return to Europe, that he is not

wanted,' and., as. a writer in the Lon-

don Times puts it, "a few days' experience of official rigorousness renders the alien very ready to take his chanc:s of getting ashore in England. Even if he is detected, the police

methods here are fraternal compared

with those -whence he departs." It is easier to state the problem than to suggest the solution of it, or any effective line of experiment. Me. C-HURCHiLi,!s;.new proposal:to require in certain specified cases, two suretics for five years' good behaviour is obviously a strong and useful amendment, 'the provision of imprisonment for those aliens who return after expulsion may also have some useful fruit. It is the widening and strengthening of the power of expulsion that is urged by Sir Mackenzie Chalmers; but there will always remain the greater attractiveness of Britain, when compared with the Continent, as a. nlaco to live in or to go to gaol in. The "Pistol Bill" announced by the Government proposes to require aliens to obtain a permit to kcjp pistols and also enable their premises to be searched. This embodies the very sensible idea that if you cannot make sure of keeping out the criminal alien you should endeavour to make him harmless when he gets in. It is already necessary for a person who desires to carry arms to take out a license, and a correspondent of the Times has suggested that it should be made compulsory for a foreigner to tr.ke out a special license before a magistrate if he wishes to carry a pistol, and that omission to' do so should be punishable by expulsion. This correspondent also suggested that the police should have power to search for arms within certain areas. If explosives may be searched for, he. asks, why not arms! Needful as is an effective Aliens Act, there is a strong prejudice amongst Radicals against the violation of what they hold is the duty of Britain to keep her doors open to all. There is nothing noble, nothing genuinely Liberal, in making easy the entrance of criminals and other undesirables from foreign countries.