MR LEAHY'S MEETING

Evening Star, Issue 3865, 14 July 1875, Page 2

MR LEAHY'S MEETING

Mr Leary addressed the ratepayers of Bell Ward at the Oddfellows' Hall, George street, last evening. Mr William Kennedy was called to the chair, and there was a numerous attendance.

Mr Lkakt commenced by thanking the ratepayers of the Ward for the honor they did him six weekß ago in placing him at the head of the poll. In the short space of six weeks ic was impossible for a member to do much in the City Council to zecommcnd himself to public favor, for his opinion was that a new member in a public body should show a certain amount of humility, and not be led away by his vanity and love of talk. Concerning the widening of Princes street, it was, toanextent, sub judice, seeing that it will soon be in the Supreme Court, and he did not think it prudent that it should be publicly discussed; but he would give them certain statements which would not be open to the charge of influencing anything that might be said or doue in another place. He would first speak on the gasworks question, but before he could form a definite opinion he wished to know whether they were fit to supply Dunedin with gas ; what defects they had, if any j and their intrinsic value apart from goodwill. If it would be found that the present works could supply the City, and could be got at a reasonable price, and that they|could avoid opening the streets, he would say it would be mere insanity on the part of the citizens not to take such a bargain when offered to them. His idea was that gas and water supplies should be under the control of the citizens. This was desirable for many reasons, and he believed that gas and water under the control of the Council meant gas and water supplied more effectively andfar cheaper. Mr A. K. Smith's chief objection to the purchase of the gasworks was the Bmall fize of the mains; but it would appear from specifications furnished on account of the proprietor of the gasworks to the Corporation, that this had to a great extent been remedied, and the mains now down were much larger, and the iron in them of a superior quality. By building works of their own, and not acquiring the present works, the whole control of the gas supply would not be in the hands of the Corporation. There was a lengthy correspondence between Mr Hankey and Sir J. Vogel, and inasmuch as in it certain private affairs of Mr Hankey were alluded to, it was requested that it might oe kept private; but having read the correspondence, he would say that the citizens were indebted to Sir J. Vogel for the very able manner in which he put the matter oh behalf of the citizens. In that correspondence they were toldL4o,ooo had been expended in larger mains. But in considering this question they had not to regard how much these works cost Mr Hankey, or his present position, whether he was a poor mau or a rich man. What they had to consider was whether the works were suitable for their purpose. It was all very well for Mr Hankey to say, "I have spent LBo.ooo—l will gink L 20.000." Like anyone else he must bear the brunt of a speculation, which he thought was good, but turned out to be unsuccessful, and he couldn't got the citizens of Dunedin make up his loss. In coming to a decision on this matter, he should be solely influenced by the interests of the citizeus. He would like to make a remark on the part Councillor Fish took in the gas question a few years ago : he would say that if Councillor Fish had not done anything elfe for Dunedin, he did a great deal for it when by his action he brought down the price of gas from 25s to 12s 6d. He said this now, before he would say things not so eoraplimentary.— (A. Voice : "Brother-in-law."—Great laughter.)— This reminded him of a joke by Mr Fish. Now. Mr Fish naußt have his joke, and .he did not object to anything Mr Fish might have said. Hs knew Mr Fish's family, and he respected them very highly indeed. A rumor was circulated at the time of his election to the effect that he was a brother-in-law of Mr Fish, and his (Mr Leary'B) friends thought if this went uncontradicted it would injure his prospec's of election. Mr Fish said in his speech to the ratepayers of South Ward :—" Those who have known ma any length of time have failed to discover any trace of insanity in the members of my family ; but possibly if I had be«*n connected with Mr Leary t'iey might have had grounds for suspicion of that fact." But if he (Mr L-ary) bad the honor of representing the ratepayers for two yeats to come, they would havejthe opportunity of judging whether he had any insanity. Mr Fish had gone in figures, and said, " Facts are chiels that winna ding." Well, that all depended en whether they were real facts or substitutes for facts. Mr Fish said that, so far from the widening of the street being a loss to

the City, it would result la a positive gain, and then went into figures by which he showed there was a loss of L2OO per annum. Mr Fish sent a petition to the Council in July, 1874, Wgned by many residents of the block. It was, he believed, got up by Mr Fish, whose signature was among those to it. In it one of the reasons urged was that there was a strong fee ing in the minds of the citizens against tl • expenditure of money on the proposed work. On the 24th July last year, Mr Fish said there Was this strong feeling, and yet, on the Ist of August, he was elected a member of the City Council, and he urged that he was merely fulfilling a pledge to the citizens when he voted for the widening of Prinons street. llive other Councillors voted for it; six againßt. Because of this vote of Mr Fish, there was an equality of votes, and the Mayor gave his casting vote for proceeding with the work. Excluding Mr Fish—and he (Mr Leary) exoluded him because he was interested-he believed that the rest of the Councillors did what was beat according to their ideas; but he would say that any ether Councillor, being so interested, would, from a sense of common propriety, have retired from that room when the question was under discussion. He would leave it to the citizens to Bay whether the work would more likely be at a cost of L 250 a year or of L 2,500. Mr Fish started with the faot on the debit side thai the amount of award to the Manse tenants would be L 26.765 17s 6d. That was a faet which they could not get over, and he accordingly put it down, lie Baid the probable cost of widening from the Manße reserve to Police Btreet would be L 5.235 2b 6d. He (Mr Leary) could not find out what the arbitrators might give the Corporation tenants, but let them consider that there were nine Manse tenants— and the citizens knew what they were awarded—and that there were six Corporation tenants; and it was clear to assume that the arbitrator c would treat them equally liberally. He was taking a low estimate when he said, in regard to the compensating of these six, that h7,500 would be below the mark. Mr Fish'B " probable cost of making road, L 2,000," he estimated a similar amount. Then Mr Fish said, " Probable other cost, L 1.200." But he (Mr Leary) would say Ll.nOO, because out of that amount would have to come arbitration charges, law costß, and expenses of obtaining legislative authority to enable the Church Trustees to lease the ground, and all other coßts and charges, including the costs and charges on account of the Corporation tenant*' award. Mr Fish put down the total cost of the work at L 35.200, and said—" Less value of land given by Government, L 2.000." Mr Fish took that off the total cost of the work, making it appear as if the land could be sold for L 2.000, and that L 2,000 be applied in the reduction of the cost of widening the street. Apart from the question of its value, the land could not be sold, and therefore the proceeds could not be taken off the total cost, but it might be regarded as a source of annual revenue which would decrease the annual charge. Mr Fish's next deduction was—" Less value of Moss's buildings, L 400." His (Mr Leary's) opinion w*f that L2OO would be about the price given for these when pulled down. Altogether Mr Fish took off L 2.400, making the total net coat of the work L 32.800; but there was one item which Mr Fish omitted taking into account; bu' it never occurred to Mr Fish that to pay for the works they would have to sell Oorporatio, debentures. His (Mr Leary's) ettimate of the cost of the works was L 37.565 17s 6d, five per cent on which would be L 1,878 5s lOd, which latter sum would have to be added to the cost of widening Princes street. This brought the whole cost up to L 39.444 13s 4d. He was prepared to stake his professional reputation a« an accountant that the cost of widening Princes street, from Jetty street to Police street, would come to L 39.406. Mr Fish said that in consequence of Princes street being widened, they would get a revenue per annum of L 2.050. He (Mr Leary) would say that instead of getting a revenue like that, they would get a revenue of only L 250 per annum, and he would show the meeting the itemß on which they disagreed. Mr Fish, for fifty feet frontage to Princes street given by the Church Trustees, put down an annual rental of LlO per foot; for increased annual rateable property to be erected (say) L 3.200, on which thero would be rates of Is 3d in the £, bringing in L 200: water rates on same, at Is 4d, L 213 6s 8d; immediate leasing of block of land from Police street to Spanish Restaurant, L 75 0; City rates on said block, (say) on buildings rateable at L 3.000, at Is 3d, LlB7 10s; water rates, at Is 4d, L2OO. That was how Mr Fish made up his annual receipts of L2.05016s Bd. As to the fifty feet to Princes street, it would have a depth of only seventeen feet, and he (Mr Leary) estimated the receipts therefrom at L 250, instead of LSOO. Then Mr Fish said, " Increased annual rateable value of property, L 3,000." Now, it was fair to sssume that it would take ten timeß that anioant to erect the said property. With the exception of the rent from the fifty feet of frontage there would be no other revenue, ft was not right to say that only by moving back would they get L 750 from the old Police Barracks block. He should be inclined to say that they would getmoreby not moving back, because the depth wuuld be greater. He thought he had shown that if they were unfortunately compelled by decree of the Supreme Court to pay this monstrous award, they would saddle themselves with an annual deficit of L 2.500 ayear. Another view of the question which Mr Fish had overlooked was that it was not part of the bargain that the Corporation was to get the freehold of the 33ft required for the street widening; there was only a promise on the part of the Church Trustees to do their best to get legislative sanction. It behoved the City Council as sensible men to make a condition that the necessary legislative sanction was got, for now there was no guarantee. MiFish said it was binding on the bono: of the citizens, and referred to those who attended the Temperance Hall meeting at a few Jeremy Diddlers, but in Mr LearyV opinion those who assembled at the hall were v meeting of citizens, who assembled to protest against a monstrous job. There was ven much to be said for the arbitrators, foi, though not obligatory on them to take into consideration the. various grounds of compensation mei. tioned in the deed, everything was put in on behalf of the tenants, and there was apparently nothing to be thought of on the part of the citizens. The only councillor, from the begin ning to the finish, who consistently and persistently opposed the work Was Mr Woodlaud. The other councillors should say they weie sorry, and should not try to get out of it. Seeing that the widening waß carried on Mr Fish's vote, and that he was personally in terested to the extent of L 3.000 or Ll,ooo, he (Mr Leary) would say that the City was not committod to the contract. It was idle for Mr Fish to say that he did not vote for the arbitiators. Had he not voted on the question of widening there would have been no casting vote, and the question would not have gone the length of arbitration at all. Mr Leaiy then read a clause from the deed of submission, the effect of which, he contended, was that, in case of there being an objection to the widening, the wholo matter should be null and void. In con elusion Mr Leary paid ho had ask-d the ratepayers to meet him in order that he might them reliable statements, because the statements of Mr Fish were calculated to mislead.

What he hads aid was an honest expression of his opinions, and he hoped that they had given satisfaction. Mr Leary then answered a number of questions, after which a vote of thanks and confi. denco was carried unanimously, and a vote

Mr Leary then answered a number of questions, after which a vote of thanks and con fi. denco was carried unanimously, and a vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.