CITY COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1873, 24 February 1880, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

Monday, Ebbedaey 23,

The Council met at the usual hour. Present —His Worship the Mayor, Ors. Gapes, Hulbert, Lambert, Taylor, Bishop, Vincent, Oherrill, Cuff, England, Ayers, Wyatt. The Town Clerk reported the receipts for tho week to be £515 9a 3d. The debtor balance at the Bank was stated as being £1412 16s Bd.

Bills to the amount of £153 18s were passed for payment. The Mayor said there was a matter in connection with some statements made at a meeting of the Canterbury Tramway Company which should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. (Hear, hear.) It was there said that the cause of the inconvenience to the ratepayers was due to the City Council, wh* ought to have insisted on the contractor getting on quicker with his work. He felt sure the gentleman—Mr O. W. Turner —who had made the remark would not have done

so if he had known the whole circumstances. He (the Mayor) had remonstrated with the Engineer and Chairman on the subject and Mr Thornton had told him it was practically impossible for a contractor to carry out so large a work as this with only one hundred yards of road open, and said that no professional man would have advised such a clause being put in the agreement. He (the Mayor) had mentioned the matter both to the works committee and the surveyor, and the latter gentleman had assured him that he had not given permission to the contractor to open a further length of road than was permitted by the agreement. He thought it was a most ungracious thing for the directors of the company to make such a charge against the City Council, and he for one would not allow it to pass unchallenged. It was no part of the Council’s duty to spur the contractor on to do his work, that was the business of tho directors of the Tramway Company, Cr. Cherrill asked whether tho discussion on this subject was to be taken now. The Mayor said that the surveyor had referred to the matter in his report, and the discussion might be taken then. Cr. Cherrill said that ho had a question to ask upon tho matter when the time came. The advertisement giving notice of the intention of the Council to raise a loan for certain objects within the city was read by tho town clerk, Cr. Cherrill called attention to the fact that the advertisement contained no notice of tho intention to let tho Town Hall and rooms comprised within it for meetings, &o. The Mayor said that the city solicitor had looked carefully over the advertisement, and said it was quite right. Would Cr. Yinoent, as chairman of the water supply committee, move a resolution adopting the advertisement as drafted P Or. Vincent declined to do so as chairman of the water supply committee. Any Councillor might do so as such, but he did not intend to take the responsibility as chairman of the water supply committee. Cr. Bishop moved—“ That the advertisement, as drafted by the city solicitor, be inserted in the local newspapers, as the Act directed.” Or. Hulbort seconded the motion.

Cr. Ayers thought the point raised by Cr. Cherrill was sufficiently important to be brought under the notice of tho solicitor. Or. Hulbert thought the solicitor had omitted the part referred to purposely. The motion was adopted with the amendment that the attention of the solicitor be called to the point raised by Cr. Cherrill.

Or. Cherrill asked the City Surveyor as to the truth of the statement made by Mr Turner at tho Tramway Company’s meeting, that he (the surveyor) had given permission to the company to break up a greater portion of road at one time than was permitted in the agreement, and, if so, on what grounds such permission had been given ? The Mayor said the surveyor dealt with this matter in his report, which would now be read.

The report was read as follows : I. In the “ Lyttelton Times ” of February the I9th there is an account of the meeting of the Tramway Company on the previous day, wherein Mr C. W. Turner is reported to have said that the city surveyor gave the contractor permission to open more road to lay the tramway than was permitted by the Act. I never gave the contractor or anyone else any permission, either verbally or in writing, to open any street in Christchurch for the purpose of laying the tramway. The only occasions on which I ever spoke to Mr Barrett on tramway matters were two, when ho came to me to borrow the steam roller, and on both occasions I most positively refused him, but I suppose I was in the wrong, as the permission to have it was granted to him.

2. The well in the Whately road is now down about 115 feet, and is in much softer ground, as it now takes only 15U blows to drive it one inch.

C. Walkdkn, C ity Surveyor. The Mayor said he thoughts Cr. Oherrill’a question was answered. Or. Cherrill said partly so, hut he wanted to know if the surveyor did not give permission then who did ?

Cr. Gapes said the works committee were unable to find any application from the Tramway Company asking to be allowed to break up more road than the agreement allowed. The works committee had gone to the works when they found that more road was open than was allowed by the agreement, and told the foreman he was not to open more than one hundred yards, and this was complied with. Cr. Cherrill said that he wished to know who had given permission to use the road roller when the surveyor had refused the loan of it.

Cr. Gapes said there was a resolution on the books that the rsad roller might be hired out to anyone for road work on certain conditions. Mr Barrett came to him with the signature of the Mayor to a permit to have the roller, and he, as chairman of the works committee, also signed it, as he saw no objection to Mr Barrett having the road roller. The Mayor said he recollected Mr Barrett coming to him some time back and asking for the roller. Ho having nothing to do with the works of the city, referred him to the surveyor and chairman of the works committee.

Or. Hulhert would ask the surveyor the reason why, with the resolution before him, he had declined to lend the roller ?

The surveyor said the principal reason why he had refused to lend the roller was that he had no condition for lending the roller with spikes, as the resolution was for lending the roller as a roller and not for tearing up the roads, besides which the working damaged the spikes considerably, the spikes costing £l4 per set. Besides this it had been found impossible to get Mr Barrett to do his work in anything like time, as was evidenced by the delay at the Madras street bridge. Or. Hulbert thought the surveyor and the works committee were not to blame in the matter. It appeared to him that the question arose whether the spikes were to be lent or not.

In reply to Or. Oherrill, The Town Clerk said that Mr Barrett had not paid for the use of the engine, nor had he signed the agreement, as he had possession of the engine before notice was given to the office.

Or. Cuff said that the directors of the Tramway Company bad deprecated the statement made by Mr Turner at the meeting. Or. Yincent asked whether it was not a fact that the agreement with the contractor had been violated by the Tramway Company at the very commencement, by their not starting him to work on the day appointed. The Surveyor read two letters he had sent to the engineer, urging upon him the necessity of seeing that the contractor took steps to remove the obstructions in the street.

Cr. England detailed the action taken by the works committee in the matter, and deprecated the action of Mr Turner at the recent meeting. Or. Hulbert said that time after time the members of the Council had called attention to the obstructions caused by the tramway. There was another matter to which he desired to draw the attention of the Council —viz., the disgraceful state in which the streets were left by the contractor for the drainage works. [Hear, hear.'] In this, as in the tramway works, he was pursuing the same tactics, opening far more of the streets than was necessary. He trusted the Council would see that Mr Barrett or any other contractor did not set the Council at defiance in the way it had been done.

Cr. Bishop said that it would be a lesson to the City Council to keep a very tight hand in future over the Tramway Company, as they had been accused of leniency towards the company—a leniency for which they had been twitted by the shareholders of the company. Or. Ayers spoke very strongly as to the dangerous way in which the streets had been left by the Tramway Company’s contractor. Cr. Taj lor had thought Mr Turner would havo had more sense than to attempt to throw blame on the Council and its officers when it was their own officers who were to blame.

Tho Mayor said that he had received a memo, stating that Mr Barrett would pay for the road roller when he received his money from the Tramway Company. Cr. England said that he had learned from Mr Evans, tho secretary, and others of the Tramway Company, that they did not consider Mr Barrett as a servant of the company, but of the Council, as he was a contractor. £“ Oh, oh.”j Cr. Gapes said he desired it to bo known that in future tramway contractors within the city would be kept strictly within the terms of their contract.

The town clerk read the terms of the Act. Or. Hulbert said that he noticed from the Act that the Council had power to appoint a person to supervise the works of any Tramway Company, who would have to pay the

expense of the same. Seeing that this company had not carried out the terms of their agreement, he thought that they might appoint a person to supervise the work. [[Hear, hoar.J In answer to a question from Or. Vincent, the surveyor stated that tho cost of the three-inch well up to tho present had been £35 or £36 for labor only. The report as a whole was adopted. The following report was read from tho works committee : Tour committee in submitting their amended estimate of works, in accordance with tho Council’s request have radu ed it to meet the financial position of tho Council, but it must he clearly understood that your committee in doing so are still of opinion that their previous report showed the smallest amounts that could be put down for the necessary works of tho city for the year. Jas. Gapes, Chairman. The total sum estimated by the works committee as necessary for the year was £21,796 4s lid, including contingencies £7700, and dependencies. The report as a whole was approved. An ad interim report from tho sanitary committee was read and adopted. Ors. Hulbert and Ayers gave a statement of the result of the interview with the Hon. Mr Rolleston that day, respecting the endowment of the city. Cr. Oherrill moved—“ That in all cases in which any company, Board, or contractor infringe the Acts of tho General Assembly under which they are carrying out works in the city, the full penalties to which such company, Board, or contractor shall have rendered themselves liable, be at once claimed, and the necessary proceedings taken immediately on such infringement by tho officers of the Council to have such such Acts rigidly enforced.” Or. Taylor seconded the motion, which was agreed to. Or. Gapes moved—“ That tho surveyor bo instructed to prepare an estimate for concreting half the west frontage of the Market reserve from Victoria bridge, say twelve feet wide and three inches thick ; also an artesian well, with proper drainage to the river, for the purpose of the sale of fish.” Or. England seconded the motion, which was carried.

Cr. Cherrill brought under the notice of the Council a suggestion made by Mr Superintendent Harris, that seeing the misapprehension which existed in the minds of the ratepayers as to the water supply scheme, that meetings should be held in the fire brigade library or any other suitable place at which the members of the water supply committee might attend and give information on the subject to any ratepayer who might desire it. It was agreed, Cr. Wyatt dissenting, that the matter should be left in the hands of the water supply committee to deal with, the Council resolving to defray the expenses of the meetings. Or. Gapes dissented from the expense being incurred except by resolution. The Council then went into committee, and afterwards adjourned. NOTICE OP MOTION. Or. Lambert, to move—“ That this Council deprecates !the action of those in this city who expose their wares for sale on the Lord’s Day, and that they deeply regret that the Municipal Acts do not empower the municipalities to make a by-law to suppress such practices; and further, that this Council pledges itself to petition the Q-overnor in Council or the Legislature of this colony to pass an Act to prevent Sunday trading.”