THE BOROUGH BYE-LAWS.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 100, 25 October 1893, Page 2

THE BOROUGH BYE-LAWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,—A good deal of correspondence has taken place, and rightly, with regard to the proposed Borough Bye laws. Messrs Goodbehere, Martin, Little, and others, deserve the thanks of the ratepayers far drawing attention to the severity and absurdity of some of them I desire to contribute my mite of criticism. As a whole, the proposed Bye-laws are no donbt well intended and may probably work for good. At the same time there are some particularly objectionable Laws, and should never have a place in the Borough Statute Book. With regard to the Building Clauses, much discretion is needed. In the first place, our Borough is absurdly large, while the closely built portion, or town proper, is extremely small. The houses on the other and much larger portion are built on much larger areas. Therefore, what would be beneficial in one case, if enforced throughout the whole extent of the Borough, would be most oppressive and unjust in the other. What can be more tyranical than the clauses referred to by Messrs Goodbehere, Little, and others, compelling those living a mile, or even three, from the business centre to rnn and consult the Town Clerk, or Inspector, in such trivial matters of construction and repair as a fowl house, or the tacking up a board kicked down by a refractory horse. Again, the restriction on stock driving, is to say the least, both absurd and tvranical, and all that has been advanced against the clauses having reference thereto I fully endorse. To be compelled to keep the stock in the sale yards all night in the winter season (for the risk of driving after dark would be great) or until sunset in the long rammer days, would be an act of cruelty to which the attention of the newly formed Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals would soon be directed, and this in addition to any loss that the utifortunate buyer or seller of stock may sustain by keeping them without food or water an unreasonable time would be increased by fines and costs. It may be said that a request to the Town Clerk would be followed by permission. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. This only makes the absurdity of the Clause more apparent. To make laws affecting the interests of a large number of town and country settlers, and then to place one man, however well intentioned, in the position of suspending or enforcing them at will is a piece of despotism unworthy of a people who are the happy possessors of representative institutions. Our Councillors have taught us, perhaps unwittingly, that a community seemingly in the possession of large self-governing powers can be degraded to a condition of which a Russian or a Turk would be ashamed. With reference to your defence of the bye-laws and criticism oE adverse opinions which came to hand after I had written the greater part of this letter, I differ. You have no right to brand as cavillers those honestly dif* ering from you in judgment in matters of which they are perhaps as competent to judge as yourself. Hoping that our worthy Councillors, who are I believe zealous for borough interests, will so alter tbe bye-laws suitable to the whole Borough, and not that little spot known as the business centre, or town of Feilding. I am, etc., J. B. Soots.