PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 3834, 8 June 1875, Page 3

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Monday, June 7.

At the afternoon sitting a number of unimportant motions were passed, and the remainder of the Estimates rushed through. Mr Brown's motion that suitable land alongside of railway lines should be planted with forest trees was lost, the Protinciii Secretary pointing out that the idea was a fallacious one. The lines were generally only a chain in width ; m forest country they had actually to cut the bush away to the extent of two chains to let m the sun. If the lines were planted on the southerly side the sunlight would he shut out. and the sleepera would decay; if on the north side, the winds would blow the branches on the lines ™„ was »Breed to recommend the reservation of of -i a ? d und “ the Southland Land Act of 1865, to assist in repairing the road from Wallacetown to Hamer Creek.

e^? 331 T e of unfeigned sympathy with the family of the late Mr Auld under their severe bereavement, together with the addendum that the Council viewed his death as a public loss and desired to record Its deep sense of the value of his l°ug And faithfully discharged labors in the service of the Province as its British a gent, was carried mni. con.

The debate on the Peninsula and Ocean Beach railway lasted two hours, and was occasionally verv animated. The second reading was moved by the PaoviHcrAi. Sbcrxtakt in a short speech, who in raging its acceptance, said that in the measure aU the interests of tbe Province were carefully guarded, while the company only asked for the right to construct the line over certain lands belonging to the Crown, and for the right to use an acre at Jetty street for railway piumosea. and an additional acre, if the increase of traffic required it with the view of erecting a market for dairy pro’ ducej also an acre near the Rattray street wharf for a passenger terminus. It would be better to assist the carrying out of such a useful work rather than to keep the land in a dog in the manger style It might be contended that the privileges were too great, but he could not conceive how a railwav system could be carried out without sufficient land °„L a H P iW r fttion - In enumerating th”Sow from the construction of the “f’J 1 ? Bai £ Jt would probably be the means of the oftkens Dn^- Uti % d “ bathing-place for the ball was opened by Mr the G pmmble of in tbe words of should be X? b ever y encouragement posed to be made to the p ft in the first instance, have should, Provincial Council. Since tbe <*mSI en tbe pressed their intention of going cx ‘ bhr, let them do so and cany thlrliis if thtylS' If they nad« oat »*ood <«•, be would iot oppoio

tt. He opposed the Bill, firstly, because the acton of the Executive had been rash, and secondly, because they did rot come to the Council before making these great concessions. He felt oispc ed to move as an amendment—"let. That as the p-o rioters of the Dunedin, Peninsula, and Ocean Beach Eailway have given notices in the newspapers of their intention to bring in a Bill next session of the General Assembly, and seeing that the rights they desire to acquire for the most part affect the rights and lands ot the Crown, this Council is of opinion that It is inexpedient for them to take any action i i passing a Bill through the Provincial Council, as legislative powers to form this railway can only be acquired from the General Legislature. 2nd. That the late Pro?incial Executive, in the a ction taken by them in conceding valuable Provincial estate to this private Eailway Company without any proposal to do so having been first laid before the Provincial Council, have gone beyond their Executive functions and powers,” but contented himself by moving that the Bill be read ,hat day six mouths. The Bill found a warm supporter in Mr Daniel, who considered the railway would be a great boon to the districts outside Dunedin. Probably the most powerful speech against the measure was made by Mr De Latjtovr, who pointed out that there was a danger of making too much of the concessions to be granted to the company and of overlooking important principles that would be initiated were the Bill allowed to be introduced. In taking up tho Bill the Council really asserted the precedent that no private railway Bill, unless introduced by the Government, had any chance of passing through the Council, while such an assertion was based upon another principle that the Council had no right to consider these railway Bills at all. Was it politic, he asked, for the Council to take that respons;bility of allowing the Government to initiate private railway Bills? and he warned the Council that the effect of doing so might be to subject a Govemmet to enoxmous temptatous; and that there might arise cases of large landholders wishing to construct railways, so bi inging pressure to bear on tbe Government as to give rise to suspi cions, and not without any injustice, of jobbery a* 4 corruption. The worst concession of all was the undue manner in which the Government bad consented, in the first instance, to give their influence to introduce tho Bill. The Government should be chary of gi'ing a preference to one Bill over another. The proper way was for these railway Bills to be introduced by private members, and then they would ho discusseed on their merits. If the line was of such importance that they could allow property of great value to he given to the concern, while there were other necessary works to he carried out elsewhere, the concessions were not too great; but so for as an unprofessional mind could judge of the measure, its effect would be to practically force the country to resume the line, whether they liked it or not. He did not see why the company should not pay rent, as a smaller one would have to do. It was preposterous to expect the Council to properly amend the Bill in Committee; as the making of amendments might be to open the door to greater abuses than they were trying to amend. Very opposite views from the member for Mount Ida were entertained by Mr Mandebs, who warmly supported the Bill, said it would be a good jibing for his and other districts if they could get railways constructed for such small privileges, and thought the company should be thanked for bringing in such a Bill. He was afraid jealousy and private interests prompted the opposition measure; and he called npou the Council to cast these aside and consider tho Bill on its hnerits. MtJMandebs’s fears brought.upon himself a sledgehammer attack from Mr Fish, who thought the eloquence and fervency of the member for Wakitip must have been the result of inspiration, if not of interest. Proceeding to discuss the Bill, he endorsed the principle laid down by the member for Mount Ida—that it created an undefined liability which tiie Province might at any time be called upon to pay. Telling the Council that he knew how the affair had been originated; how the wheels had been made to go round; and bow they had been greased, be went on to say that “ the consummation of this job would be to saddle the Province with an imperfect and incomplete line at an enormous coat But it mattered not whether the Bill passed the Council, for he was satisfied the General Government would never give their consent to it. The to .way was a pure speculation—a large parcel of land was bought by certain gentlemen, and the best way to increase its value was to get a railway to run through the centre of it. But so far as the reeldents ci Kensington, Forimry, and Cavershom were concerned they might as well bo without a line. He contended that the projected extension to the Peninsula! was a sop to get support, and he condemned va ' uab i e la nd to any private company without the consent of the General Government to the making of the line, and to the using of their own line from the Anderson’s Bay road to the terminus. They would have the spectacle of two hues running parallel to each other : two termini sc.. Sc., and the consequent creation of utter con’ uißion. To allow a private company to construct a line of railway alongside the main line was not only m i. U3 i?ce but a great evil. After pointing out some defects in the Bill he argued that, as lower proposed to he given to cross roads, Sc., the measnre was ultra vires, and therefore beyond tho power of the Council to entertain. He made light of the Provincial Secretary’s sudden anxiety for the comfort and health of the citizens of Dunedin, who he (Mr Pish) said were not particularly anxious for the construction of the line. Bt j-Turkbull was amazed aud surprised that members should oppose the principle of having railways constructed by priva.te enterprise. He reminded them of a few years ago wuen 8 per cent, guarantees went begging, and said if public money became scarce the same thing would happenagain. Itwostheduty of Governments General and Provincial, to give the fullest encourage! ment to private enterprise. After somcremarkfibv Messrs Kinkoss and Ireland, Mr M'Lean opposed the Bui, because there was no limit to the quujititv of land proposed to be given to the company. The Council ought to know to what extent the Pro vmce was going to be committed. It was not desirable to encourage private enterprise, if the Provmte bad to pay too high for so doing. The Hon DtMenzies referred to tbe quantity of ’and that could be occupied—land wanted for tbe Harbor irust and other purposes—which could be reclaimed “ fa sv a ? across to Anderson's Bay. It seemed to him that tbe proposal to give away Crown lauds to the company and power to cross roads, was so glaringly ultra vires that itwas waste of time to discuss the Bill. .Besides, he- to not being satisfied with the present state of his information about the line, and seeing the rights proposed to be given, the objects of the Company the whole thing from an engineering point of view, together with the final results of the only private railway they were acquainted with, and the enormous price paid for it, and the fact that the General and Provincial Governments had so far taken up the ground in the construction of ¥ thou ? ht Council should steadfastly set its face against all private lines until some general rules as to the reguUtion! upon which private railways are hereafter to be constructed were laid down by the Assembly WlShed , for furtller information, he legimded the proposal very much as a repetition of the Port Chalmers railway. He objected to the Ime running parallel for three-quarters of a mile with the mainline. On the whole, the thing smelt too strong, and the General Government should put their foot upon it. The Provincial Secbetabt. in replying to the various objections that had been raised, said the Government were not bound to the Bill; all they wanted the Council to give effect to was the proposal sent to the company in the letC dated »th March. In so far as the BUI differed li 0 ?-t^ se i ( i oud i* 1 . ons ’ Government would ask that it he altered in committee if it reached that stage. They were bound to conclude that the line ran in the direction most suitable for the settlors in the district, inasmuch as they had no complaints oS that score from the people themselves. He believed it was quite true that one of the principal causes of this project was the fact that one individual possessed property, the value of which would be enhanced by the construction of the railway But that was no reason why they should stand In the way & roject v : , • on . the contrary, it should be asserted if the Public interest was concerned and the line proved beneficial to the public. On a divi. voting-^be? WaS a^e^ved by a majority of one, the For the Bill 13 ■ Messrs Daniel. Davie, Driver Henderson, Ireland, Lumsden, Manders. M : DeTrnirt ’ an<?fvi’son ißl<i Sfcewar<i > Turnbull (teller^’ Against the BUI 14 : Messrs Armstrong, Brown ™ 5”/?n OW ? e 4r G ’, 1 ’ C - Claik - DeLautour (teUer) ’ Pish (teller), Hazlett, Menzies, Moody, M'Qlashan M Kenzie, M‘Lean, M’Neil. and Eodgera. aßnau ’

Tuesday, June 8. a A° ?, ue3tionß > tbe Government stated (1) that the Government had decided to open a block m the Crookstown district, other than recommended by the petitioners, the former being tbe more suitable. (2.) It was not intended to set aside more land on deferred pnvmenl« in the Taringatura, convenient to the Wmton-Kmgston railway, because nearly all the unsold land there had been already so Br«ja*urt» 8 r«j a *u rt » ~ be Government saw great dim .ty m B lvln ß effect to the wishes of the Council m reference to the reduction of the gold duty. I hey would vote a sum under the Appropnatwii Ordinance, but he did not know what after course would be taken. Probably the hon. member for Mount Ida would give them some information ; they were not above taking advice—(hoar)—from anyone who knew now to effect the object in view. Mr De Lautour’s motion—asking the Council to carry out the recommendation of the Uoldfaolds Committee rc the jietion of residents at Cromwell, viz., (1) that clause 9 of the memo, of conditions in respect to the Kawarau bridge should be enforced ; and that the toll levied mi o°t passengers should be abolished; also (2) that the Government should purchase this and other bridges erected under Government condi’tiona out of any loan or advance obtained from the General Government, and that tbe tolls on such bridges be reduced to a limit sufficient for interest for a sinking fund and for maintenance of the bridges—was negatived by 17 against U,

In moving—“ That it is not advisable that the official department in connection with goldfields should be outside Dunedin,” Mr De Lautoub dwelt upon the present unsatisfactory management of the Goldfields Department in consequence of its head quarters being at Cromwell ; and expressed his individual opinion that it would be in the interests of the goldfields if a separate Goldfields Department was don* away with; but a less evil than the present one would be to station it at Dunedin. The Provincial Secretary remarked that the present arrangement worked well; and further that the matter had now dwindled down to a personal question. This soft impeachment was denied by several members, the first to do so being Mr Turton, who said the proper place to settle personal questions was on the reclamation ground or in the Supreme Court. Fresh fuel was added to the fire by Mr Ireland, who said that if he thought the motion was brought forward with worthy motives he would support it, but it was an unfair way to break up the present Government, and was, he feared, actuated by jealousy. When it came to Mr Fish’s time to speak, he turned savagely upon the member for Mount Benger, and was not long in falling foal of the Speaker. Having coupled “unwoathy motives” with the name of the member for Mount Benger, he was called upon by Mr Speaker to withdrawthose words, which he ruled ro be unparliamentary. Whereupon Mr Fish argued logically, “as the member for Mt. Benger said he would have voted for the motion if he thought it was brought forward for worthy reasons, it follows, as he intends to vote against the motion, that the reasons are unworthy and therefore impure.” The SPEAKER still ruled the hon. member out of order; he should not attribute motives, Mr Fish; “It would be better for the hon. member himself to disclaim any intention to impute motives; and it is not, I think, for the Speaker to dictate. I decline to withdraw.” Taking the hint of the Speaker to substitute “improper” for “unworthy” Mr Fish went on to refer to the interruption he had been subjected to and concluded his observations with a parting shot at the member for Mount Benger, “ whose slavish, following of the head of the Government,’ would induce him to support a railway from Mount Benger to the moon if that hon. gentleman proposed it—and not only to support it, but to quote scripture to show that it was quite right in the eyes of the ancient Jews.” Whgn he resumed his seat he was called upon by Mr Speaker to withdraw his reflection upon his (the Speaker’s) action in calling him to order, which the number for Dunedin showed no inclination to do, but walked out of the Chamber. Thereupon Mr Fi=h was named from the Chair, and his conduct reported by Mr Speaker to the Council. Being called into the Council, and taking his seat, Mr Fish was informed of what had transpired during his absence, and called upon to explain. Mr Fi&h : “ I don’t see what explanation I can make. It appeared to me that I was unnecessarily interrupted and I disclaim the right of the Speaker to say, and I fail’to see why it should be said that I ret erred to the Speaker. I say I did not refer to the Speaker; and therefore have no explanation to make. I object to be ostracised, or made a martyr of.” The Speaker having expressed himself satisfied with the explanation that the member for Dunedin’s remark was not applied to him-self, the matter was allowed to drop, and the debate proceeded, with the result— Ayes, 10; Noes, 14.