CITY COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2070, 12 October 1880, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

The ordinary meeting of the City Council was held yesterday evening, at seven o’clock. Present —His Worship the Mayor, Ors. Ayers, Lambert, England, Hulborc, Choriill, Taylor, Bishop, King, Gapes, Thomson, Cuff, and Vincent.

Before proceeding to the ordinary business, a special meeting was held to confirm a resolution striking the watering rate for the ensuing year. On the motion of Or. Ayers, seconded by Or. King, the resolution was duly confirmed. The other forms necessary to the striking of the rate wore then observed. The credit balance at the Bank was stated to be £l6Ol 7b 2d. The usual statement of finances was to the following effect.: —Receipts for week ending October 11th, 1880 : General account, £523 2s lid ; drainage rate, £47 3j 6d ; Drainage Board, £165 2s 3d. The bills to be paid amounted to £252 17s Bd. The works committee recommended payment of an item of £6 odd for damage done to a cab.

The accounts were passed for payment, A petition from ratepayers was read, praying that the Cashel street bridge, now under repair, might bo widened. Or. Taylor presented the petition, and spoke in support of it, suggesting that, as tho bridge was admittedly narrow, it would bo a work of great convenience to the public to construct a footbridge alongside of the present structure. The petition having been formally received, Or. Taylor moved that it bo adopted. Or. Gapes seconded the motion. The Surveyor suggested that to carry out the work would be to destroy the appearance of tho bridge. Or. Taylor naked whether the foundations of tho bridge in question were imperfect. The Surveyor replied that there were in fact no foundations, the piles being placed on concrete blocks laid on the natural surface. After some further discussion,

Or. Thomson suggested the advisability of referring the matter to the works committee. Or. Taylor then withdrew his resolution, and Or. Thomson’s suggestion was adopted. A letter was road from Messrs Craig and Stevens, sinking fund commissioners, as to the investment of a further sum of £SOO on freehold security for three years at 8 per oent.

Referred to tho finance committee, with power to act. A letter was read from the Chairman of the Board of Health, enclosing a resolution passed by that body as to the delegation of their powers to the City Council. [The resolution in question appears in tho report of the Board of Health], At tho suggestion of tho Mayor the letter was referred to the by-law committee to take the necessary action and legal advice, and report to tho Council. A. letter complaining of the action of an officer of tho Council in reference to the action taken to recover rates was referred to the departmental committee. Two other letters of similar character wore referred to the same committee.

The Mayor referred to the question of a road to tho public cemetery, to whioh the Council had been asked by Mr Jameson, the chairman, to contribute a portion of the cost, and the matter had been referred to the by-law committee. Or. Bishop reported that the committee had given this matter their consideration, and found that tho Council had no funds to [expand on such a work, and that in any case they had no power to spend money on work outside their jurisdiction. The report was approved. The Surveyor’s report was road and adopted. The next item on the order paper was the question of the tramway. The by-law and tramway committee reported as follows : 11th October, 1880.

There are only a few points in the letter from the Tramway Company to the Council, bearing date 30th September last, that your committee deem it necessary to refer to, the general facts contained in your committee’s previous report not having been shaken, ’the Tramway Company obtained a concession to lay certain lines, as shown on a plan deposited. They have devint! d from that plan in a number of places, and claim that they can make any loop lines or sidings they choose without further reference to the local authority. With this opinion your committee differ, and therefore would recommend that the legal position of the Corporation with respect to the Tramway Company be placed beyond a question of doubt by obtaining such further legal opinions as the Council may deem necessary. The Tramway Company in their letter to the Council give an explanation of why certain of the deviations wore made. Your committee cannot but regret that the company did not deem it advisable to have adopted the same course before the alterations were made instead of after the lines had been laid and public attention called to the fact. Yonr committee would like to say that they did not enter into the question of the advisability or otherwise of these deviations being made, bat only reported that they could not ascertain that the Council ever authorised them, and your committee still maintain the rght of the local authority to be consulted on any alterations from the deposited plans that the Tramway Company may deem necessary. The engineer of the Tramway Company writes —“ I am at a loss to understand how the Council could have made any modification to the lines as laid down which could possibly hive conduced more to the public safety than has been done by the Company, as they nave reached in every case the limi’.s of practicable working, while increasing the advantages to the public traffic.” Your committee won'd point out that in the plan deposited by the Tramway Company on the 20th September last, when applying for further concessions, a curve from Manchester street into the South Town belt line is shown which would escape the cab stand and yet join the line in front of the railway station, A s the plan was prepared by the Tramway Company your committee presume that the carve is practicable, and could have been as easily set out at the time the line was being laid. This is one instance where reference to the local authority would have prevented future difficulties. Again, in the loop line referred to ai No. 8 in previous report (near Montgomery and Co.’s), this deviation runs a distance of 2.j chains parallel with the footpath on the east side of the street, ar.d only f‘ft. from the side channel. This place has already proved an obstruction to the traffic when the line is being used, as there is not room for a vehicle to keep the proper side of the street and pass the tram cars. Your committee do not consider that these place- have reached the limit of practicable working, or increased the advantage to the public traffic. Your committee only point out these instances to show how necessary it is, in the i- tercets of the public, for the loe .l authority to be consulted when deviations from the original plana are made. The remarks ia the Tramway Company’s letter respecting an interview between the then by-law committee and the chairman of the Tramway Company respecting the South belt cab stand are somewhat specious. The interview took place with reference to the ’baa

[ stand, and when the committee were leaving the ground Mr Brown called their attention to the points that would connect the curve with Manchester street (the lino was not then laid), and remarked that the cab stand would have to be shifted, as the line would run through it; but he disingenuously refrained from any mention of the fact that the curve was being considerably | altered from the original plan to get there. With reference to the tramcara discharging their passengers in the centre of the street, your committee’s remarks were intended to more especially apply to the information given them respecting the practice obtaining in English and American cities ; but as regards Duneiin, your committee have official authority for stating “ that the tramline does not in any case run alongside the kerb to discharge passengers.” Beference has been made to Dunedin having to purchase the tramways at the expiration of fourteen years. Your committee would point out that if the Christchurch Council desire to acquire the tramway at the end of a similar term, the city will have to pay for the ‘‘goodwill” of the undertaking as well. This in Dunedin is not to be included as the concession ceases. The “ goodwill ” of the Christchurch tramway at the expiration of fourteen years will probably ba no inconsiderable item in the valuation.

Respecting rates, it appears that the promoter in Dunedin is not charged with municipal rates, and therefore the annual payment made to the respective corporations will be as follows : Dunedin. Christchurch.

Annual rent paid by Tramway Company to Corporation .£365 0 0 Nil. Municipal rates Nil. £lB 15 0

Total paid by Tramway Companies to Corporations for 18 BO £365 0 o£lß 15 0 There is one other point that has coma somewhat prominently forward during the last few days, and that is the Lower Lincoln road being outside the city boundary ; as this seems to be more than probable, the Council will have to bear it in mind when granting any further concessions. The concession granted by the Council to the Tramway Company to run to Addington along this road appears to have lapsed on the 24th ultimo, that being the time stated for them to complete the work.

As the Tramway Company have declined to fall in With any of the suggestions of your committee respecting the South belt line, opposite the railway station, and also their refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Council to approve of any deviations from original plans before they are carried out, yonr committee can only recommend the Council to refuse to consider any further concessions, or to agree to any further Order in Council until the question of their authority is settled. Y our committee are prepared to recommend standing places for tram-cars, but desire more time to consider the license fees to bo charged for drivers and conductors.

With regard to standing places, yonr committee beg to recommend two on the South Belt near the Railway Station, as indicated on the plan attached hereto, and they will be prepared to recommend standing places in other streets, but desire more time to consider these, as well as the license fees to be charged to drivers and conductors.

On the motion of Or. Bishop tho report was received. The Chairman said he understood tho recommendations of the committee in brief to be that the two cabstands indicated should be decided on, and that no further concessions should be granted to tho tramway till the position of the company with relation to the City Council should be definitely defined. Or. Bishop, to elicit discussion, moved that the report be adopted. Or. Oherrill seconded the motion, and suggested that, in view of the diversity of opinion as to tho power of the company under the Order in Council, the matter should be submitted for further legal opinion, in order that it should be finally settled one way or the other.

Cr. Gapes held that the position was sufficiently defined by tho agreement between the company and tho Council, and he saw no reason to incur the expense of obtaining additional legal opinion. Or. Thomson objected to the concluding portion of the tramway committee’s report. It was a fact that a previous Council had made a certain agreement with the company, and for this Council to attempt to break through that agreement was an undignified procedure. He then proceeded to comment on the reports submitted by tho by-law committee in comparison with the letter of the company, and pointed ont that the Governor was solo arbiter in any disputes between the company and tho local authorities. He therefore objected to that portion of the report which said they should grant no farther concessions until some supposed grievances were redressed. Their duty obviously was to appeal to the Governor in this difficulty, and submit to his award. Cr. Hulbert submitted that tho last clause of tho report (to which Cr. Thomson objected) contained tho only solution of the difficulty—namely, that until the Tramway Company were brought to recognise tho Council’s authority over the streets, no further concessions should be granted. Or. Taylor opposed the report. The committee did not themselves appear to understand their position, and had not approached the subject in a spirit of equal fairness to tho respective parties concerned. Ho regarded it as an inconsistent position to assume that the Tramway Company or any company could be got to undertake an enterprise which might be variously affectedby different councils elected from year to year. Moreover, the spirit of the report throughout was of a character to widen tho broach between the Council and the Tramway Company. Or, England pointed out that those who had spoken against tho report, had evaded the main issue, namely, the standing places, whioh constitutes the main difference. Ho instanced the stand at tho railway station. He trusted the report would be adopted. Cr. Ayers recognised that tho last speaker had struck the keystone to tho whole difficulty in referring to the stopping place at the railway station, and he agreed in the advisability of refusing to make concessions until a proper understanding should be arrived at. The Mayor thought any such action as that last suggested, and which had been condemned by Or. Thomson, was unworthy of any representative or legislative body. For that reason ho could not agree with the report as a whole. At the same time there were other portions of tho report he approved of, and he gave every credit to the by-law committee for their efforts in endeavoring to bring the matter to a settlement. In conclusion, he remarked that he, personally, should be perfectly satisfied to see the matter referred to the arbitration of the Governor. Further discussion ensued, in which different Councillors spoke for and against tho position taken up by the tramway committee.

Or. Bishop replied at some length. Or. Thomson moved an amendment—- “ That the points in dispute between the City Council and the Tramway Company be stated in detail, and bo referred to the only authority contemplated by tho Order in Council, namely, his Excellency tho Governor.” Cr. Lambert seconded the amendment. He was averse to eeeking further legal opinion, which ho regarded as waste of time. Tho question was redebafced on the amendment, and the Mayor urged the acceptance of it as tho fairest and best method of settling tho difficulty in the interests of the ratepayers and the Tramway Company. At this stage Or. Thomson obtained permission to alter his amendment to the effect that the disputes to be stated in detail for submission to the Governor bo “ agreed to by the City Council and the Tramway Company.” The amendment was put, and negatived by six to five, the division list being—Ayes, the Mayor, Ors. Gapes, King, Thomson and Lambert ; noes, Ors. Ayers, England, Hulbert, Chorrill, Taylor and Bishop. Cr. Hulbert moved a further amendment — “ That the several matters in dispute between the Council and tho Tramway Company may be referred to a conference, to consist of the members of this Council and the directors of the Tramway Company.” Immediately afterwards Cr. Hulbert withdrew his amendment.

Cr. Thomson then moved the following : “ That the conference asked for by the Tramway Company be granted, and that the Council meet tho directors of the company. Seconded by Cr. Taylor. Tho last amendment was carried on a division by six to five. Or. Bishop moved—" That the legal position of the Corporation with respect to the Tramway Company be further strengthened by the Council obtaining such further legal advice ns may seem necessary.” Or. England seconded the motion, which was, after discussion, carried unanimously. Tho finance committee’s report in reference to a case against Mr George Beatty and others for recovery of rates in tho B>.M, Court, was read, and contained certain suggestions as to tho method to be observed for the recovery of rates due.

Tho report was adopted. Tho Council having disposed of soma routine business adjourned at 11 o’clock.