CEMETERY BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2018, 12 August 1880, Page 4

CEMETERY BOARD.

A meeting of the Board was held at 3 p.m. yesterday. Present —Messrs Jameson (chairman), D. Caro, Loughnan, Anderson and Bev. H. 0. M. Watson. The Chairman said that the Selwyn County Counoil had offered to devote £IOO out of the moneys ooming to the Avon Boad Board for formation of a road to the cemetery.'provided £2OO was raised from the neighboring Boards or municipalities. The Chairman reported that he had received a " Gazette " announcing Mr D. Caro'e appointment as a member of the Board. He might say that the condition attached to the vote proposed by the Selwyn County Council made it almost impossible for them to accept it, as no Boad Board or municipality could vote funds out of their own district. Bev. H. 0. M. Watson suggested that perhaps it would be a good thing to apply to the City Counoil. The Chairman [thought the Council had no funds to spare. He felt that the best way would be to take tho £IOO and devote it towards the work, and endeavor to raise the remainder. Mr Loughnan asked what would be the cost of the road ? The Chairman replied £3OO. Bev. Mr Watson and Mr Loughnan thought that the City Council should be applied to, as the city was greatly interested. It was resolved —" That the chairman write to the Selwyn County Council, asking them to remit the conditions under which the £IOO was to be granted to the Board for the making of the road, the Board pledging itself to use its best endeavors to raise the sum of £3OO, as required." Bev. Mr Watson moved—" That the chairman write to the Christchurch City Council, the Sydenham Borough Counoil, and the Heuthcote Boad Board with regard to the contribution by them to the cost of the road."

Mr Caro seconded the motion, which was agreed to. The Board then prooeeded to consider the new Cemetery Bill, which has been withdrawn. The provisions of the Bill wore briefly explained by Mr Loughnan. Rev. H. C. M. Watson pointed out what he considered was an objectionable provision in clause 23, as to the powers of denominational guardians. Clause 29 he also thought was objectionable, as it gave power to the denominations which he did not think they should possess. For instance, it was provided in the clause that the denominations should open the ground as they thought proper. This, he thought/should be reserved to the trustees. He also thought the trustees should have a general supervision'overjthe inscriptions placed on tombstones. He thought also that it was undesirable, as proposed by clause 25, that the cemetery should be divided into paddooks. Mr Anderson thought that it was very desirable that the Board of Trustees should be the controlling power. Mr Loughnan agreed to this, and pointed out that the new Act provided that this should be so. Mr Caro enquired whether the cemetery had yet been apportioned to the various denominations. Mr Anderson said that it had been done. Mr Loughnan pointed out that there was a very arbitrary amount of power put in the hands of the inspeotor of cemeteries, who might order a quantity of vexatious repairs, whioh would have to be done, or if it was reported to the Governor that it had not been done he might order it to be closed. Mr Caro thought this section applied moro to country cemeteries and not to what he might call metropolitan cemeteries. Mr Loughnan thought this quite possible, but still it might bo used with regard to a metropolitan cemetery. He thought the power was far too extensive to plaoe in the hands of one man. Mr Caro moved—" That the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, as the Government have discharged the Bill from the order paper." Bev. Mr Watson seconded the motion, whioh was agreed to. The Board then adjourned.