THE FIRE BOARDS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1684, 26 February 1913, Page 8

THE FIRE BOARDS.

CONFERENCE—I9I3. SYSTEM OF FIRE INQUESTS. I (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Christchurch, February 25. Tho annual conference of representatives of tho Firo Boards of tho Dominion was hclil to-day. Tho delegates present were:—Auckland—Messrs. Horaco Walker and T. S. Jackson. Duncdin, Lawrence, Oamaru, and Maori Hill—.Mr. T. Chalmer. Hokitika—Mr. H. L. Michel. Bawera and New Plymouth—Mr. G. Paton. I'almerston North—Mr. li. J. Armstrong. Christchurch—.Messrs. H. Holland and A. L. Parsons. Tho Mayor of Christchurch (Mr. Hol- , land) briefly .welcomed the visiting delegates, and spoke of the importance of the work undertaken by members of fire hoards. Mr. A. L. Parsons, chairman of the local board, was elected chairman of the conference. A remit proposing to amend Section 11 in the direction of making it impossible : for an insurance manager to continuo .to occupy. a jiosition on the board after he had resigiied from 'the managership of a company produced some discussion. The original motion included "representatives of tho local authority," but it was felt to bo unwise to limit the area of selection in this direction,-and the'remit was amended to apply only to insurance representatives, and this-was carried. .The Auckland Board proposed to amend Section 21 so that the Government shall be (liable to a greater portion of the expenditure. In the cose of the smaller ■ boards, where there is very little Government property requiring protection, the Government pays one-tenth. In the case of Auckland, where there is large value in Government' property, the Government paya less than • one-fortieth. The remit was adopted unanimously. It tras mentioned that in Australia the proportion paid by Governments was onethird. Here the Government paid to each of the" large .boards only per year, which was held to bo absurd. Li was agreed that a suggestion should be made to the Government that the Australian system of paying ofle-third of the levy for'expenditure should bo adopted here.' , Another remit proposed to amend Clause 2 by. adding to the interpretation of "insurance company" so as to include fire insurance placed .outside the Dominion. Mr. Parkin, of Auckland, moved tho .re,mit, and read clauses from the New SouthWales Act which/ would serve as a model. . A Christchurch Tetnit on the same subject was "to compel persons or firms that place their insurance with non-contribut-ing companies to pay to the boards' ftlnds 'in respect of tho premium paid by them ill proportion to amounts paid ;by the contributing companies." ■ The Auckland delegates desired that steps Should .be taken to establish a Dominion uniformity of wages. .Mr. Michel said that he thought that, it would be quite impossible to establish any scale of wages that could apply all over; New Zealand. Many of the smaller boards were dependent on .volunteers, and it .would bo a pity, to'trench upon that system in the meantime. No uniformity' could be secured outside the four centres. Tho chairhian said' that the conditions in the four centres were so different that it was extremely difficult to secure uniformity. It t was agreed that' the subject; should bo dropped as the difficulties were insuperable.. ;. . • ■ : _Mr. T. Chalmer''moved':—That tho Fire Brigades Act be amended by the substitution of "twenty," in'lieu of "ten," at the end of tho fourth line of-sub-section 4-of , Section 6of tho Fire Brigades Act Aniendmcnt, 1908, so as to increase the boards' borrowing powers to jC20,000. : Mr. Chalmer stated that his board especially desired to increase their borrowing ; powers, because,:,-.th.o capital expenditure, had ' bech s -i£10,'000.! vii.v"-. ' . Tlie proposal > received unanimous support. ■ Both : the Auckland and- Christ-, church delegates said it v:as required for their purposes. Christchurch had already borrowed to its limit, and the board "was getting tied up bv the'existing conditions. Borrowing on debentures meant no overdraft, or other assistance could be secured. The remit was adopted. The Christchurch Board advanced a remit to define the-board's liability for damage done by or to its plant when tho same is proceeding to or from a firo upon alarm being given. . The chairman referred to a recent case, and a judgment - given by Mr. Justico Denniston and advice given .by counsel that leavo to appeal' should be applied -for. The point arose as to whether a superintendent, being in command 'under statutory authority and not then under command of the board, was not, himself responsible rather than the board. Another point was that, granting the liability to be the board's, its extreme liability should be defined. . , Mr. T. Chalmer. said'that,, in Duntdin, the fire brigade had absolute command of the road, and was not governed by tho by-laws. ' The opinion; was expressed that this remit was the most difficult of all those brought;np. >■ ' Mr. Chalmer suggested that the remit should be amended to read:—"To limit boards' liability for'damage done by or through negligence of its-servants to a sum not' oxceodlntf .£500." This was agreed to-and. adopted. It. was agreed , that the chairman (Mr. A. L. Parsons) should lay all remits before the Minister for Internal Affairs at .Wellington-next week. At the. morning's sitting the very/important subject of holding inquests into fires, was raised. Tho Auckland delegates proposed that Section 46 of the Fire Brigades Act should be amended to provide for the payment of the expenses of. coroners' inquests. In support-it was suid that an inquest might bo held by a fire board, but no provision was mado for tho payment of costs. It was felt that either the board or the Government' should foot the bill. The testimony given by the delegates from Dunedin and Christchurch was that, where coroners had, been asked to hold inquests into fires, they had been held, and no request made for payment. Tho Auckland delegates, in. reply, stated thatj where, an insurance company asked the board to hold an inquest, it had been asked to pay costs, and that was felt to bo an unfair thing because,such a company might become "marked" and lose business. ' Mr. T. Chalmer (Dunedin) said that ho would like, to -urge the holding of systematic inquiries into the cause of fires. He felt that it would do a great deal of good in eliminating fires and exposing causes. He quoted a Homo authority to tho effect that the holding of inauesta was a great preventive of arson and fraud on insuranco companies. The effect was educational, and-it. led people to bo more careful in dealing-with fires in'both business and private places. The inflammable nature of celluloid and flannelette had been exposed, and it was felt that the system of fire inquests should bo very generally extended. On the particular point of tho remit, however, ho would urge that it should not be iadopted because it would spread the idea that a fire board was" responsible for the cost of such inquiry which' certainly had not been the caso in the past Mr. Michel- (Hokitika) said that iho believed, that the Act already gavQ i sufficient power for inquiry, but. if there were not, then let each firo board pay tb'o cost liecessarv. Mr. Chalmer further said that tho police would not ask for an inquiry into a firo unless they deemed that there were suspicious circumstances, but his board took a moro charitable view of tho case, and thought that a great many fires were due. not to criminal-intent, but to what might be termed criminal carelessness in tho construction and carrying on of works in unsuitable buildings and bad storage methods. 110 therefore believed that a systematic) inquiry would lead to revelations which would pi-Omoio knowledge that would reduco the number of fires. The snccific proposal that provision should be made for tho payment of inquest costs was lost.