CITY COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 2920, 28 June 1872, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

This Day. There was a full meeting of the Council this afternoon, when'reports by the Waterworks purchase, and lighting committees were brought up for consideration. The Waterworks Committee recommended that the Company’s offer for the rale of the works as per letter of the 25th inst., which submitted the resolution arrived at by the meeting of shareholdeas on the 21st inst., be accepted by the Council, subject to the condition that the Council will assume only lecral responsibility which the Company may bo* under as regards Colonel Kitchener’s claim. In view of the completion of the negotiation, the solicitors are drafting a bill for submisssion to the Assembly at its approaching session. . Mr Livingston moved the adoption of the report. . Mr Kossbotham protested against the purchase, and hoped Councillors having a pecuniary interest in the Company would decline to vote in the matter. The works had cost L 70.000, and he was prepared to state, on good authority, that similar Works could be erected for L 40.000. Why then should the citizens be pledged, or their interests be trifled with? He moved that the Council move no further in the matter. Mr Neale wished to state, in answer to an editorial in the Daily Times, that the Corporation were purchasing the works without enquiry, that the Council had made enquiries as to their efficiency, which had been reported upon. Mr Merger, as a shareholder in the Water Company, replied to Mr Eossbotham’s strictures, and informed that gentleman that the Council consisted of upright and honorable men. * , . The Mayor defended the negotiations. The citizens need not expect to get any immediate reduction in the water-rates on the Council obtaining possession of the works. In two or three years no [doubt a reduction 13d or 14d in the £ could be expected. The report was adopted, Mr Rossbotnam being the only dissentient, Messrs Thoneman and Mercer, as shareholders, declining to vote. . . - ~ The Lighting Committee reported the receipt of correspondence from Mr Hankey’s representative, and Mr Cook, his solicitor, and recommended that the City Solicitors be instructed to take snob steps as they may deem advisable in order to compel Mr Hankey’s attorney to execute a contract in conformity with his written agreement. The Committee further recommended that, pending a ratification of the contract, no further payments be made by the Corporation in respect of gas supplied to the street lamps, and that any tacit permission hitherto allowed the proprietor of the gas works to open up the City streets in order to lay or relay pipes be withdrawn, pending a satisfactory arrangement with Mr Hankey. The correspondence alluded to in the report dates from February 13, when Mr Larnach agreed to supply the Corporation and private companies with gas at 12s 6d per 1000 feet, provided the latter settled their accounts by the 13th of each month. On the Council submitting a draft contract embodying those terms to Mr Cook, Mr Hankey’s solicitor, that gentleman wrote stating his client’s willingness to carry out fairly his (engagement with the Corporaration and citizens. “ To avoid misunderstanding, ” Mr Cook added, “Mr Hankey will not in any form of words contract with the Corporation to supply gas to the citizens. Each citizen might as well ask Mr Hankey to contract with him to supply the Corporation on terms agreed upon with them. ” On Jline 22, the Corporation wrote to Mr Larnach withdrawing the permission given to the gas lessee to open City streets, because he had refused to ratifv the contract of February 13. On the 25tli June Mr Larnach wrote —“ I am willing and ready to uphold my promise with any citizen desirous of having an agreement from me direct; but 1 object in loto to accepting the Corporation as sponsors for the citizens, unless I have a warranty by the Corporation of their power to make contracts in their behalf. In other words, could any citizens be prevented by the Council from taking gas at a low er rate than 12s Gd, if obtainable during my compact with the Corporation? If not, I fail to see the object of your Council trying by threats or using its power to stop the progress and working of my business, and compel me to sign a contract that would be subversive of alljequity in the arrangement whichl cauneverlcousentto. If thecitizensare in any way dissatisfied with their business ielations with me, I am prepared to do the utmost in my power that is fair between byer and seller to give them satisfaction;

but I will not sanction the Council interfcrfering between me and my consumers, unless in cases where proper powers of attorney can be produced. All that lam prepared to do for the citizens is set forth in my public notices on each of our daily papers, and I apprehend the Council do not ask more of me. As regards the contract, I am prepared to sign it at any moment, provided its terms are confined to the Corporations own business of street lighting, and the former to purchase as formally agreed upon. ” On June the Council wrote to their solicitors, asking if they considered Mr Hankey bound his (Mr Larnach’s) undertaking of February 13, and received the following reply:— “ June 25.

“In reply to your letter of the 22nd inst., we have the honor to say that assuming Mr Larnach’s power of attorney to he sufficient for the purpose, we are of opinion that his principal, Mr Hankey, is bound by the memo, of 13th September (coupled with Mr Larnach’s letter of February 29) to execute an instrument containing (among other agreements) an undertaking to supply private consumers at the price stated. There is nothing in our opinion (which we venture to express with much deference to Mr Cook’s opinion to the contrary) illegal in such an undertaking, and considering that the memo, in question makes that undertaking the equivalent for the restriction to be imposed upon the Corporation of not erecting gas works for three years, we do not think the Council would be justified in waiving it.— We have, &c., “ Smith and Anderson.”

Messrs Barnes and Livingston condemned Mr Larnach’s action, the former advocating that the Council should proceed with the building of new works. Mr Kam*ay moved that a deputation, consisting of the Mayor, Messrs Livingston and Thoneman, wait upon Mr Laruach with a view to a satisfactory arrangement being come to; failing which the Corporation’s solicitors be instructed to proceed. The Mayor declined to see Mr Larnach, as he considered the Council had been trifled with too much. He hoped no citizen would enter into a contract with Mr Lamach, as they might depend on the Council seeing that they should not be called on to pay more. The report was adopted.