PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 16, 18 June 1874, Page 3

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Wednesday, June 17. The Speaker took the chair at 5 p.m. PAPERS. Mr Jollie laid certain papers on the table. Mr Maude laid certain correspondence on the table. FENCING ORDINANCE. Sir Cracropt Wilson asked the Government whether it is intended to amend the Fencing Ordinance, 1872, during the present session ? Mr Jollie replied in the negative, as there was not sufficient time to prepare the Bill before the meeting of the Assembly. immigrants’ cottages. Mr Bluett asked the Secretary for Public Works whether it is the intention of the Government to erect cottages for immigrants in the Ellesmere district, similar to those in course of erection in the Lincoln and other districts ? Mr Jollie replied that the Government had written to the Road Board, asking the Road Board to erect two cottages at Southbridge, two at Lccston, and two at Brookside, as recommended by the Board, CONTRACT SURVEYS. Mr Turnbull asked the Provincial Secretary in what manner the contracts for surveys arc let, and the terms of such contracts ? Mr Maude replied that the contracts for surveys were let to those surveyors whom the chief surveyor might recommend as competent and reliable men. The terms were £2 per mile for general traverse, £1 each for trigonometrical stations, calculating sides and furnishing diagrams ; Is (id per acre for freehold sections to the extent of 100 acres, and Is per acre for the balance in any section in excess of that quantity. TIMARU AND GLADSTONE BOARD OF WORKS. Dr lIAYNER asked the Secretary for Public Works if any communication has been received from the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works in reference to the diversion of the sum of £2OOO voted for the construction of a bridge at Epworth, Tcmuka ? Mr Maude replied that the Government had received a communication from the

Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works, to the effect that it would require a much larger sum than that voted to construct the proposed bridge at Epworth. The following - the resolution of the’ Board on the sub- :—•“ That the Government be requested to Bow a portion of the sum voted for the Epworth bridge to be expended in forming the road to the Temuka bridge,” The Government had also received a telegram, stating that (he Engineer’s estimate for the Epworth bridge was £4700. CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION. Mr T. S. Tancred moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution : —That his Honor the Superintendent be requested to place upon the supplementary estimates the sum of £30,000, for the purpose of bringing the passenger traffic from the several lines of railway to a central station in the City of Christchurch, the sum to be allot ted for the new proposed passenger station to be considered a portion of such amount ; and that an application be made to the General Government during the coming session to place the proposed railway under the Public Works Act, the Provincial Government undertaking to recoup the General Government the cost of the same.” The hou member said that, now they were asked to spend £IO,OOO for a new passenger station, it behoved- the Council to see that it was spent so as to benefit the public. He thought the station in Colombo street would not do, but that the station should be in a central position in the City of Christchurch. Ho might mention that forty millions had been spent in Loudon in running the railways lo a central position, and he felt satisfied that if they ran the railway into the centre of trade, the increased traffic would pay the outlay. Moreover, if the railway ran into the centre of Christchurch it would greatly benefit the country visitors, who would at once be conveyed to the centre of the city. He trusted the House would affirm the resolution. Mr Gray seconded the motion. Mr Montgomery said that the station, proposed by the Railway Engineer, between Manchester street and Colombo street, would provide better accommodation for passenger and goods traffic. He (Mr Montgomery) wished to point out that great danger would accrue from the railway crossing the streets ; in fact, he was certain that the inhabitants would not like it. Ho might mention that many of the large towns in America, as well as elsewhere, had no central railway station: in fact, in some of the places the central station had to be removed outside the towns. He desired to point out that it was not desirable to place a station in the centre of. the city, both as regards its danger as well as occasioning inconvenience to the inhabitants. He should oppose the motion. Mr Maskell would also oppose the motion, and he pointed out that the City of Christchurch was spreading away from the railway station instead of towards it. There was another reason why he should not support the motion, and that was, the district South of the Rangitata could not be called upon to contribute their fair share of the £30,000 which the hon member proposed to expend for a central station. He was surprised that snch a proposition should come from the member of a district which could not possibly be called upon to contribute towards the expense. Mr W. B. Tosswill thought that the railway might be brought up to the corner of Tuam street and Colombo streets, and if that could be done for a moderate sum the money would be well spent. If the hon member could give an assurance that the railway could be brought up for the sum he had named, he should feel inclined to support the motion. Mr Fisher opposed the motion, as he considered that it was scarcely possible to determine where the centre of population would be in a few years. Mr Kennaway would oppose the motion, inasmuch as ho thought that the making provision for conveying passengers to the centre of the city should be left to private enterprize. The Government money should be spent in railways that would open up the country and facilitate the transit of produce. Mr T, 8. Tancred said that after the expression of opinion on the part of the Government aud hon members, he would withdraw the motion. LEAVE OP ABSENCE. Mr Maude moved—“ That leave of absence be given to the Hon E. Richardson, for one week.” The motion was agreed to. RAKAIA ROAD DISTRICT. Mr Jebson moved —“ That the Council respectfully recommend his Honor the Superintendent to declare the Rakaia road district an agricultural district under the provisions of the Canterbury Trespass of Cattle Ordinance, 1872.” The motion was agreed to. RAKAIA BRIDGE. Mr Jebson moved —“ That the matters referred to in the report of the Railway Engineer as to the state of the Rakaia bridge ; also as to the change of site of a goods shed, at the Christchurch railway station, be referred to a Select Committee, such committee to consist of the following members—Messrs Montgomery, Kennaway, Webb, Knight, Sir Cracroft Wilson, T. S. Tancred, aud the mover, with power to call for persons and papers, aud to report within ten days.” The hon member said that he was aware of the delicacy requisite in making this motion so as not to pre-judge any party. The Railway Engineer had reported unfavorably of the bridge, and of the materials used in its con- ■■ struction. The engineer had also reported that the contractor for asphalting the bridge had sent in a protest against putting on the asphalte in the state the bridge was in at the time. The engineer had also condemned the use of asphalte. It was evident if these allegations were true, that a heavy responsibility rested somewhere, especially as they were now likely to be called upon to vote £6OOO for the repairs of a bridge which had only been in use about fifteen months. The committee, he proposed, should enquire, into who designed the bridge, who superintended its construction, and who certified to its being properly done. He thought that enquiry should also be made as to the reasons which had led to a change of the site for a goods shed at the Christchurch railway station. Mr Maude said that ho hoped the House would pause before they granted the committee, although the Government had no objection to the fullest enquiry being made, it was true that a report which opened up very serious questions for consideration had been made to the Government by the Railway Engineer on the state of this bridge, and the Government intended to make a very careful investigation into the matter, and at the proper time they would lay the whole matter before the House, together with all

the papers they had received on the subject. The Government had not yet had time to give so full enquiry to the matter as its importance required. It was stated that in order to examine the planking the bridge would require stripping, but the Government wished to carry on this investigation without, if possible, stopping the traffic, and when this was done the Government would be able to inform the House on whom the responsibility rested, and when they had fixed that responsibility they would be perfectly able to deal with the question. He therefore trusted that the House would not, by appointing a Select Committee, impede the action of the Government. He hoped the hon member would withdraw his motion and leave the matter in the hands or the Government to investigate, as it was purely of a departmental character. Mr Kennaway thought the matter was hardly ripe for inquiry, although he could not agree with the hon member that the appointment of a Select Committee would impede the action of the Government. Mr W. B. Tosswill opposed the motion. He thought that the matter would be better investigated after due inquiry had been made by the Executive. Dr Turnbull objected to Government pressure being brought to bear so as to burke inquiry by an appeal to the Council to trust to the Government. He claimed for the Council whilst sitting the full right to inquire into this important matter, and he deprecated the statement made by the Socre tary for Public Works, to the effect that as it was a departmental question, it should be left to the Government to investigate. The present Executive had the full confidence of the Council, but at the same time he must protest against any attempt to interfere with the rights of the Council. Mr Montgomery disclaimed, on the part of the Government, any idea of interfering with the rights of the Council. All that his hon friend meant, was that the matter should at present be left to the Government to investigate, and the House might rely upon it that the Government would deal out evenhanded justice. Sir Cracroet Wilson was in favor of an enquiry being made by a Select Committee, but as he thought it a pity that two questions had been mixed up together, he would move as an amendment—“ That the part referring to the change of site for the goods shed be struck out.” Mr Turnbull trusted that the hon member would consent to withdraw the resolution after the assurance that had been given by the Government. Hon Mr Buckley said that he recollected perfectly well that the planking of the bridge has been complained of some time ago by hon members in that House. Mr Maude said that he never for a moment intended to question the right of the House to make the inquiry ; what he meant was—and he believed the House would agree with him —that at present it would not be wise to appoint a Select Committee, The amendment was agreed to. Mr Knight expressed himself in favor of appointing a Select Committee. There were many rumors outside —one of which was, that the General Government Engineer certified that the bridge had been properly constructed, and that the Provincial Engineer endorsed this statement —and it was very desirable that the matter should be inquired into by the Council, and the rumors set at rest, Mr Bluett was also in favor of appointing a Select Committee, The Government, by putting on the estimates a sum of £6OOO for repairing a bridge that had only been in use a short time, was in itself a strong argument that inquiry should be made. Mr Higgins opposed the motion. After some further discussion the res Jution was negatived on the voices, BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICTS. Mr Kennaway moved —“ That in the opinion of this Council it is desirable that the boundaries of the provincial electoral districts should be made coterminus with the boundaries of the road districts,” Mr Dixon seconded the motion. The hour of 8 o’clock having arrived, The House proceeded to the orders of the day. RAILWAY TOLLS AND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE 1872 AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 1874. Mr Montgomery moved the third reading of this Bill. On the question that the Bill be now read a third time being put, Mr Knight moved that the Bill be recommitted. Sir Cracroft Wilson seconded the motion. After a short discussion the amendment was negatived on the voices, Mr Knight demanded a division, which took place as follows : Ayes 14 Noes 21 Majority against the amendment 7 The amendment was therefore negatived. On the motion for the third reading being put, Mr Bluett moved—“ That the Bill be read a third time that day six months.” The Bill contained a provision which was impossible to be carried out, viz., that goods should be removed from the station within one hour after which hon members would at once see was an impossibility. Mr Harper seconded the amendment. The amendment on being put to the House was negatived on the voices. Mr Bluett called for a division, which took place as follows : Ayes 11 Noes 24 Majority against amendment... 13 The Bill was then read a third time and passed. committee op supply. On the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr Webb expressed a hope that the Government would not remove the present station master at Lyttelton to Christchurch. Mr Maude said the Government did intend a re-distribution of the station-mas-ters and officers of the railway department, and in doing so would Jbe guided by wba. they considered best for the public service The matter referred to by the hon member was, he df sired to point out, a purely departmental one. ]Hear, hear.] The House then went into committee, Mr Webb in the chair. The following votes were taken : Class 20—Railways—Subdivision I—Management, £3103. Agreed to. Class 21—Railways—Subdivision 2—Passenger department, Lyttelton and Christchurch line, £3158 9s Gd. Agreed to. Class 22—Subdivision 3—South line passenger department, £2097. Agreed to.

Subdivision 4. Passenger department, north line, £1590 ss. Agreed to. Subdivision s.—Goods Department, Lyttelton and Christchurch line, £7890 7s Gd. Agreed to. Subdivision G. —Goods and wharf, Lyttelton, £5248 9s 2d. Agreed to. Subdivision 7.—Goods department, south lino, £BOS 15s. Agreed to. Subdivision B.—Goods department, north line, £786 sg. Agreed to. Subdivision 9. —Police and gatekeepers, Lyttelton and Christchurch line, £634 6s. Agreed to. Subdivision 10. —Gatekeepers, south line, £675 12s 6d. Agreed to. Subdivision 11.— Gatekeepers, north line, £372 Is. Agreed to. Subdivision 13—Railway Renewal Fund, £3900, Agreed to. Subdivision 14—Engineering department, £2424 10s. Agreed to. Subdivision 15—Stores department, £1202 6s Bd. Agreed to. Subdivision 16—Locomotive Running department, £9867 9s 6d. Agreed to. Subdivision 17—Repairs and maintenance locomotives, &c., £5875 10s. Agreed to. Subdivision 18—Maintenance of way, £5344 0s 6d, Agreed to. Subdivision 19—Maintenance of tunnel, £956 10s. Agreed to. Subdivision 20—Maintenance of way, South line, £8022 12s 10d. Agreed to. Subdivision 21 —Maintenance of permanent way, £3342 3s 6d. Agreed to. Subdivision 22—Wharves and jetties, £2599 19s. Subdivision 23—Extension of lines working expenses, £8837 15s 9d. Mr Maude stated that this item was rendered necessary by the opening of the Ashburton portion of the line and the various branch lines. The item was agreed to. Total of the class, £78,794 9s Id. Class 21 —Lighterage and cartage, £6OOO. Agreed to. Mr Maskell moved that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to, progress reported, and the committee obtained leave to sit again, RACECOURSE RESERVE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE. Sir Cracroft Wilson moved the second reading of this Bill. The hon member said that all he asked for was that the House should decide this question on its merits, and that the House would approach the subject with unbiassed minds. He would, no doubt, be told that a similar amendment to the one he now proposed had been rejected, but then it was well known that the popular voice in some cases did throw out measures of a useful character. He believed the words which he wished repealed in the old Act had been interpolated while the Bill was going through committee, as they were directly at variance with the remainder of the clause. The hon member then quoted a number of statistics showing the amount expended by the Jockey Club in carrying out the races. The total amount expended in stakes, &c., was £25,978 3s sd, while the total expenses from 1865 to 1874 had been £2461 12s lid. During the tenure of the Jockey Club they had spent £3OOO in improvements on the course, and he thought it would be very hard if the public objected to pay a small sum towards keeping up a sport and providing amusement for them. He felt that the man earning 15s per day and the man earning 5s per day would only be too glad to contribute the small sum of Is asked. He appealed to the equity of the House to allow this Bill to pass its second reading. Mr G. B. Parker seconded the motion. Mr Montgomery pointed out that it was distinctly laid down in the Ordinance that foot passengers should not bo charged for entrance on any part of the domain. He, however, looked upon it that they would be depriving the public of free admission to grounds set apart for public recreation. He should therefore oppose the motion, as he looked upon the rights of the people in this direction as a sacred trust, and one that could not be too jealously guarded. [Hear, hear.] However, the Government would place on the estimates a sum of £IOO for the race fund, as the Government would make a profit by carry, ing passengers by the railway, and this would, he thought, be a better way of raising money than by charging the public for admission. Another thing was that the public could not be very well excluded, as it would require a double force of police, and perhaps ensue in a breach of the peace. He should vote against this motion, because it would be depriving the public of a right they were entitled to. [Hear, hear.] Mr Parker wished to point out that if they had no right to charge foot passengers, those who came on horseback or by means of traps were also entitled to claim exemption. In all other parts of the province, and at Timaru, charges were made for admission to racecourses. If they were unable to give such large stakes as hitherto, the Canterbury meeting would soon recede from its position of a metropolitan meeting, and the result would be that considerable loss would result to trade. . Mr Potts would oppose the motion, as he held that the public should have free admission to the grounds reserved for public recreation. The words referred to by the hon member for Heathcoto (Sir C. Wilson) had been put in in committee, and the division was 16 to 6. He had opposed the change then, and should do so now. Mr W. B. Tosswill supported the Bill. There was no doubt that now nearly every one went by rail, and he thought it would be far better for the people to pay their shilling than the sum of £IOO should appear on the estimates. [Hear, hear.] Mr Higgins supported the second reading. Dr. Rayner opposed the motion for the second reading. Messrs Dixon, Bluett, and Gray supported the second reading. Messrs Knight, Joynt, Andrews, and Fisher having addressed the Council against the motion, Sir Cracroft Wilson replied, and the motion for the second reading was put and carried on the voices. A division was demanded, and took place with the following result : Ayes ... ... ... ... 21 Noes 9 Majority for second reading ... 12 The Bill was read a second time. The House then went into committee on the Bill. The Bill was passed through committee with some few verbal amendments, reported to the House, and the third reading fixed for next sitting day. Notices of motion having been given, the House adjourned at midnight till 5 p.m. this day.