CITY COUNCIL.
The usual fortnightly meeting of the City Council was held tin’s afternoon ; present—His Worship the Mayor, and all the Councillors except Or. Mollison. THE PRINCES STREET ARBITR VTION QUESTION. 'I he following letter, signed by Messrs Alex Sligo, James Eobin, Thomas Beveridge, Robert K Murray, and R. Hudson, the Princes street Widening Committee, was read Dunedin, 19th October, 1875, To his Worship the Mayor, and the City Councillors of Dunedin. * Gentlemen, —In reference to the present position of the Princes street widening question, we, the undersigned, desire respectfully to submit that we consider this a favorable opportunity for endeavoring to bring about a final and (if possible) amicable settlement of the matter. We think wo are justified in assuming that a majority of the ratepayers are in favour of the work being done at a fair and reasonable cost; and also that the City Corporation are under a moral obligation to do it, if it can be done for an amount satisfactory to the citizens. Under these circumstances, we would commend to the earno-1 consideration of your Worship and the City Councillors the desirability of trying to bring about a settlement. Or. Reeves thought the question should be decided by the Council in some way. With re gard to th? second paragraph, bo considered that it was not now too late to do what should have been dono before—viz , that the ratepayers of the City should be consulted. He had always opposed the work solely because ho considered it an unnecessary expenditure for the City to incur. Of course he did not dispute that it would be a great City improvement, but the question was whether it would be desirable for the City to incur such a large expenditure. It might fairly be said that it would cost something under L 25.000 to widen Princes street south. The tenants, sooner than goto endless Ihigation, might possibly accept L20.00J for their claims (Cr. Quick : L18,COO); and then in addition to this there would be some 1,5,000 or 1*6,000 for carrying out the improvement,
He protested against the Council going to such expenditure without some expression from the citizens. The meeting in the Temperance Hall was not an expression of the ratepayers, even though it concurred in the desirability to widen the street. It was desirable to take the vote of the whole of the ratepayers, stating the computed amount of the works at (say) L 25.000; the question should be put plainly before them —yea or nay. In the event of there beingamajorityfavorabletotheworkbeingdone, then it would be time for the Council to consider whether the work should be dene; if, however, a majority decided that the work should not be done he considered the Council was not justified in incurring the expense. Certainly it was a great pity that the Corporation and the Manse <• lants should be compelled to waste money in law suits —not exactly a waste, for the lawyers must live and the matter had got to that stage now that he (Or. Reeves) considered it would be better for all parties if an amicable arrangement could be come to. Personally he would be more inclined to take some decided course, and if anything like a majority of the ratepayers favored it he would ike to see the work done. With a view to determine the wishes of the ratepayers of the City, and to have the matter definitely settled, he move that a vote of the ratepayers be taken as to whether the work should be carried out at a cost of L 25,000. > The Mayor pointed out that the Corporation first courted action in the matter —they went to the tenants and mode exertions in the first place. As they all knew the tenants had been put to considerable inconvenience, and, no doubt expense, and he thought the best course would be to submit the substance of the letter to the tenants, and ask if they agreed with it. If they replied “ Agreed,” the Corporation might arrange the matter at a discount of 20 to 25 per cent, on the arbitrators’ awards. He deprecated going to further unnecessary expenditure.
Gr. Isaac vigorously opposed the motion, and argued that it was the Council’s duty to have the street widened. He moved ‘ That a copy of the letter be sent to each of the tenants, and that the replies be referred to the Finance Committee to report to this Council on the desirability of the work’s being done.” Cr. Gibson seconded the original motion, considering the widening unnecessary. Before a work involving such expenditure was en tered into the voice of the people should be taken. Or. Leary suggested that Cr. Isaac should withdraw his amendment and put it as a fresh resolution after the original motion had been carried Cr. Isaac refused to do so, saying that he considered the taking of a plebescite derogatory to the Council. The matter had been before the citizens sufficiently long already. The Mayor recommended that whatever might be the Council’s determination, it ought to be carried out as speedily as possible. The Council appeared to be overlooking the fact that the persons who had leased Corporation property on the understanding that tho street should be widened, would, if it were not done, have a claim for compensation. If there was a chance of compromise, the Council was fully competent to enter into a reesonable compromise so long as it was according to law. Cr Reeves having replied, The amendment of Cr. Isaac having been lost by six to five, the minority being Crs. Isaac, Chapman, Brown, Quick, and Roberts, Cr. I.eary moved as an addition to the motion the following : “ Before taking a vote of the citizens on the subject, a copy of the letter of the Citizens’ Committee be sent to each of the Manse tenants, with a request that they will state the smallest amount of compensation they will accept.” Aft r further discussion, Cr. Reeves’s motion was withdrawn, and Cr, Leary’s amendment put as a substantive motion and carried.
Mr Mirams, City Surveyor, writing in reference to the letter from Mr Henry Spears, contractor for the St. Andrew street sewer, respecting compensation for delay, says:—“ The contract for constlucting the sewer is now complete, and the final certificate has been granted. The contract was for labor only, and was signed on the 11th April, 1874, to be completed on the 30th September following, under a penalty of per week. The long delay in the completion of the work arose chiefly through the non-delivery of the bricks by our contractor, Mr O’Heir, and therefore Spears was quite unable to make any progress for weeks together. These bricks were of special make, and could not be procured elsewhere. By the terms of the specification it is provided (see clause 4) that ‘ The contractor shall have no claim for compensation or loss of time should any delay arise in providing him with materials for carrying on the work, but a proportionate allowance of time shall he made upon the contract.' lam of opinion, therefore, that there is no legal claim against us tor compensation, though it is open to question whether even the above clause would cover a very unreasonable delay to which a contractor was subjected. Having read Mr Spears’s letter, and knowing the whole circumstances fully, I am prepared to recommend that LIOO be paid ns compensation for the delay and the actual loss that must have accrued through the delay. . . . The matter having been referred to me, I have given my judgment, but the Council will see that the question is one of feeling and sentiment.” The following reports were brought wo:— The Works-Committee reported inte> alia that, for the reasons given in the surveyor’s report, Mr H. Spears be paid a sum of LIOO by way of compensation for any loss he may have sustained through having been delayed as regards the completion of the St. Andrew street sewer, consequent upon the short supply of bricks, &c. Permission has been grantsd to the Postal Department to erect a pillar letterbox in the Octagon. The Sanitary Committee reported—(l) That it has been resolved to plant blue gums round the manure depot in order to prevent any nuisance arising therefrom ; (2) the Inspector of Nuisances having reported that a nuisance existed on a section in Great King street, the property of Mr R S. Dods, for whom Mr E 1niond Smith is attorney, instructions have bee n given tot ike legal proceeding against Mr Smith in regaid thereto; (3) the General Government having declined to allow the Registrar of Deaths to supply the vital statistics required by fie Health Officer, it has been resolved to supply the necessary c'erical labor for the pur pose, and obtain the returns under the direc tion of the Health Officer. [Left sitting ]
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18751026.2.19
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3953, 26 October 1875, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,481CITY COUNCIL. Evening Star, Issue 3953, 26 October 1875, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.