CITY COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 228, 2 August 1881, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL.

The ordinary meeting of the Council was held last night. Present—His Worship the Mayor, Crs. Lambert, England, Hulbert, Cuff, Treleaven, Oherrill, Taylor, Yinoent, Bishop, King, and Ayers. The Mayor said it would be necessary to deal with the question of the night soil contract before proceeding to other business, as it might be determined to take steps at onoe. The Town Clerk then read the report of the committee on the subject referred to. The sanitary committee report that in consequence of the contractor, Mr A. Duncan, not having improved in carrying out the work under his contract, although he has received every indulgence, they had coma to the conclusion that it was useless to allow him to go on, and therefore recommended the Council to cancel his contract, and to employ Mr J. Brightling to carry out the work. Or. Taylor spoke in support of the report, and said arrangements had been made to commence the work to-night, so that the present contractor could receive the necessary notice not to proceed with his contract further. He moved the adoption of the report.

The motion was seconded by Or. King and carried unanimously. Several letters in reference to Mr Duncan’s performance of his contract were read, including appeals from the contractor and his wife to be allowed to continue in the employ of the Council.

Or. Taylor said they must not let private feeling weigh in considering the true interests of the people. The following resolution was then moved by Or. Taylor, and seconded by Or. Cuff, viz. —“ That in consequence of the continued breach by Mr A. Duncan of his contract with tho Council, dated the 27th day of June, 1881, for removal of night soil, such contract be and the same is hereby cancelled.” In reply to a question, it was stated that over 200 complaints against the contractor were recorded.

Or. Bishop remarked that he knew of one or two instances in which the complaints made wore not with the authority of the ratepayers mentioned. He thought it was just as well in considering this matter that they should know what the complaints were. The Town Clerk enumerated certain cases of neglect on the port of the contractor, and their nature.

Or, Lambert pointed out tbat in some houses the closets were placed ia such obscure places that the contractor might possibly be excused for not finding them. In reply to Or. Oherrill, The Mayor said that 700 complaints had been received altogether, and 231 since last meeting. Or. Oherrill—And I understand that all those have been attended to, with the exception of twelve. Were the balance of the oases satisfactorily done ? The Mayor conld scarcely answer the question, but fresh complaints had come in. The Town Clerk said the complaints had been struck out of the book in which they wore registered, on Mr Duncan being informed of them.

Or. Oherrill—Then you are not sure that the cases have been attended to.

The Town Clerk—Certainly not. In some cases I found that the contractor had neglected to take advantage of the notice given him.

In reply to Or. Treleavon, The Town Clerk said the complaints had averaged twenty a day for the last fortnight. Or. King testified that there had been gross neglect on the part of the contractor. Or. Hulbert hoped the Council were satisfied of their legal position in cancelling the contract as they proposed. Or. Taylor said the committee were acting in strict conformity with the advice of their solicitor, who wrote the notices they proposed to send.

Or. Thomson sympathised with the committee who had charge of this nasty business, but he was not prepared to go the whole length of the resolution. They had no guarantee that all the complaints were well grounded. He thought the committee would have done well to direct one of the Council officials to go round and verify each cose. He suggested that this course should be adopted next week, and the question could be postponed fop a term. No doubt the contractor had been guilty of neglect, possibly through a want of appreciation of his responsibility. They had not, however, sufficient evidence before them to judge equitably between man and man. And until each complaint was thoroughly substantiated, ho would not be prepared to go the length of the resolution. In the meantime, ho would point out that they had a hold upon the contractor in their power to impose fines. Or. Bishop said the last speaker had somewhat forestalled him. He was going to suggest that a fine of 5s be imposed for each broach of contract. He would also point out that Mr Duncan had a partner who was going to take charge of the contract, and no doubt there would be a change for the better. He should move an amendment —“ That Mr Duncan be informed that a penalty of 5s would be inflicted for each breach of the contract, and that if the contract was not

properly carried out during the next week his contract would be cancelled.”

It vu pointed out that the notice had already been given. Or. Thomson seconded Or, Bishop's motion, in order that they might bo assured of the contractor receiving fair play. After further discussion, Cr. Thomson remarked that there were complaints during the time Brightling was at work, and the complaints against Duncan should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.

Or, Ring pointed out that in some oases Brightling had given up the keys of premises, and could not enter.

Or. Ayers confirmed this statement. Or. Oherrill thought tho committee had failed to bring evidence in support of their recommendations. He thought the report of the sanitary committee was passed on the understanding that the case was an overwhelming one as against the contractor, but the committee, it appeared, hod not made this evident.

Cr. Thomson referred to records to show that a number of keys had not been handed over to the contractor by Mr Brightling till twenty-six days after the contract was taken up. The Inspector and Ranger were called in and examined.

Mr Hobbs had inspected some of the places from which complaints emanated, and found that they had been neglected, but Mr Bock, the ranger, had visited most. Mr Beck had visited from twenty to thirty houses. Found justification for all the complaints so far, only one case being slightly exaggerated. Some further discussion ensued.

The amendment was then put and negatived, only Ors. Bishop, Thomson, and Oherrill voting aye. The original motion was carried.

A letter was then read from Mr Brightling tendering for the work of city scavengering on certain conditions named.

Or. Taylor moved that tho tender be accepted. Seconded by Cr. Hulbert, and carried. The statement of accounts for tho fortnight showed Receipts, general account, £B7l 2s 3d ; suspense account, £IOB 9s 8d ; drainage rate account, £BS 19s fid : bills passed by works committee, £384 8s 8d ; bills to be paid, £592 11s 43. The credit balance at the Bank was reported to be £1847 17s Bd. In reply to a letter from the secretary of the Druid centenary committee, the Council resolved that they had no objection to the holding of a torch light exhibition, A letter was read from Mr G. O’Connell, asking that Friday, August sth, be proclaimed a half holiday, to enable citizens to witness the Hunt Club Steeplechases, to take place on that day. Agreed to. A letter was read from Mr Inspector Broham, acknowledging receipt of the Council’s letter pointing out the increase of incendiarism and larrikinism in the city, and requesting that the police force on night duty be augmented to cope with the evils, and in reply stating that in order to give effect to the Council’s wishes, application had been made to head quarters for four additional constables.

The city surveyor’* report was read as follows :

1. The lighting committee recommend that a lamp be placed near Cashel street bridge, at the corner of Cambridge Terrace. 2. The works committee find that the request of the Boating Clubs concerning the position of their boat sheds, cannot be complied with, and the committee have therefore instructed the town clerk to write to them requesting them to remove the boat sheds before the Ist of November next. 3. I have had the Whate'ly road repaired with broken metal, and the steam roller is at work on it to-day to consolidate it. 4. On Saturday night last a lamp in Manchester street was knocked down and smashed, but I have not yet ascertained by whom it was done. 5. The following building permits have been issued during the month of July Mr Harris, Worcester street ; Mr Lamb, Lichfield street ; Mr Bennett, Fyfe street; Mr Tamer, Chester street; MrEiter, Montreal street; Wesleyan Church, East belt; Mr Burns, Gloucester street ; Canterbury College, Worcester street; Mr Conray, Lower High street ; Mr Hobbs, Gloucester street; Steam Laundry Company, Richmond road ; Mr Appleby, Worcester street; Messrs Edwards, Bennett and Co., Lichfield street; Mr Louie son, Antigua street; Mr W. R. Parker (5), Gloucestsr street; Christ’s College, Chester street.

The report was adopted. In reference to the question of a water supply to the city the following was then read:—

The committee, to whom the report on the water supply was referred at last meeting of the Council, has carefully considered the entire scheme, and unanimously recommend it to the Council for adoption. The portion of the scheme to which your committee’s attention has been more particularly directed is the method by which the necessary funds are to be provided. The ordinary funds of tho city are inadequate to such a demand, without the expenditure was spread over a number of years, and the present scheme to he of any value ought to be proceeded with immediately. It is feasible, simple, and easily understood, economical and effective, and capable of extension without complication; and contains every element which ought to make it acceptable to the ratepayers. Your committee has therefore no hesitation in recommending the Council to apply to the ratepayers in terms of tho Municipal Corporations act for the necessary authority to borrow the money on debentures extending over a period of thirty or fifty years. The scheme is estimated to cost, say, .£14,000, but as a certain routine has to be gone through, whether tho amount be large or small, involving considerable delay and expense, your committee recommend that authority to borrow £220,000 he obtained, on the clear understanding that only so much will be borrowed as will complete the present proposal, the balance to he appropriated in extending the scheme, and then only at the request of the ratepayers. Although your committee confidently believe that the ratepayers will cordially approve of the plan submitted, and give the Council the necessary powers for carrying it into effect, yonr committee has thought it not undesirable to suggest an alternative, in the event of the decision of the ratepayers proving unfavorable. From information gained during this and previous enquiries, yonr committee is of opinion that little difficulty would be experienced in inducing a company to undertake the work* and however much yonr committee nay be opposed to the idea of companies undertaking works of a purely municipal character, it will nevertheless be prepared to acquiesce in such an arrangement, having for its object the conservation of the public health. Yonr committee is prepared with statistics to show that the investment would be of a very remunerative character, and only refrain from entering thereon under the confident belief that the decision of the ratepayers will render such a coarse nnnesary. Or. Thomson moved the adoption of the report. The Mayor asked if the committee oontem plated rating the whole of the city ratepayers for tho work which would only affect a part. Cr. Thomson replied that it would be necessary to borrow the amount named, but it would not be necessary to come upon the ratepayers to the full extent. In this connection he pointed out how, after the first cost, a profitable income would be realised. The Mayor understood that the committee might not contemplate calling upon tho ratepayers to the full extent, but for all that they, the people, would be responsible, and he should suggest a scheme which would embrace the whole area of the city, so that all those called upon to bear a share of responsibility might have a share of the benefit. Unless this were done he feared the ratepayers would reject the scheme. Or. Ayers suggested that the scheme might be offered to the public in an alternative sense, that is, as the committee suggested, or taken to the extremes of the city. Personally he thought that the extra cost, and consequent liability, would be so little more, that it would be better to extend it to the belts.

Or. Oherrill pointed out that the scheme as proposed by the committee really contemplated the extension of the pipes, when it appeared that there were funds available for the purpose, and it could be done at any time. Or. Thomson replied, and answered an argument used by the Mayor by showing that the ratepayers outside the area of pipes proposed in the scheme were really benefitted to a considerable extent by the reduction of the estimated 25 per cent, on the cost of maintaining means of fire prevention, and in the decrease of fire insurance premiums. This, as Or. Oherrill had pointed out, was only part of a largo scheme, and it was surely better to undertake that than a large scheme which might be beyond their means. The resolution was then unanimously adopted, and the matter referred to the water supply committee to carry out the proposal, and take the necessary steps to bring it before the ratepayers. Or. Ouff suggested that the surveyor should ascertain if there was any truth in a statement in one of the papers as to inefficient means of exit at the theatre.

The Surveyor replied that, as to the construction of the building, he never saw a theatre better provided with outlets for the

safety of the public, but the persons about the theatre had, he found, blocked the sliding doors.

The Mayor said he would see that these places were periodically inspected. The Mayor moved—“ That as the present system of setting down the bulk of the tramway passengers in the centre of the road in Cathedral square is absolutely dangerous to life, this Council offers to grant to the Tramway Company a further concession to extend their lines round the north, south and west sides of Cathedral square, and further, by consent of the Government, to make a standing place outside the kerb at the back of Godley statue, for the purpose of taking up and setting down passengers j also, to erect a verandah over the footpath for the convenience of the public in waiting for the tram oars, such extended lines, loop lines and standing places, also the material, length and design of such verandoh, to be subject to the approval of this Council.” Seconded by Or. Cuff. Some discussion took place. Or. Cherrill proposed an amendment—" That the matter be referred to the tramway committee,” which was seconded by Or. Hulbert. Or. Thomson, in discussing the position which the tramstand should occupy, said he would remove the Godley etatuo altogether, and place the tramway station where the cabstand now is. Then, in future times, they might see John Robert Godley where the tank now is, and John Evans Brown on the other. (Laughter.) He commended the suggestion as to the station seriously to the consideration of the committee.

The amendment to refer the matter to the committee to report to next meeting was then put and carried. Or. England moved, in accordance with notice, as follows, re the Christchurch Telegraph Department:—“That, the poles already erected being very unsightly, the Government be requested to have the new telephone and telegraph poles hereafter erected in the city wrought or painted, or the wires, where practicable, carried on the roofs.”

The motion was seconded by Or. Ring, and agreed to. On the motion of Or. Thomson, it was resolved—“ That the amount to be charged to the Drainage Board for the collection of the rate be 7i per cent.” After the transaction of some formal business, the Council (at eleven o’clock) adjourned.