THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1882. EXITS FROM THEATRES, &c.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2433, 24 January 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1882. EXITS FROM THEATRES, &c.

We notice with great satisfaction that the City Council have taken steps to carry out a suggestion made in a recent article by us as to increased precautions against fire in theatres. They appointed a committee to bring up a report as to the proposed means of improving the exits from places of amusement and other assemblages of people. The committee appear to have taken a groat deal of trouble in the matter, and have brought up a very exhaustive report, with a great deal of which we agree. The recommendation as to buckets of water and a pail pump being placed behind the scenes of the theatre is a step in the right direction, but we think the Council should go even farther than this. These precautions will bo of little use unless there is also some person specially detailed every night whose duty it shall be not only to see that the apparatus for fire extinction is in working order, but also be prepared to take charge of it. Without this the mere stationing of a number of buckets behind the scenes, which may or may not contain water, or having a pump which similarly may or may not be available, would be useless. We hope to see this point insisted on. Again, with regard to the Gaiety Theatre, though it is true the opening of the two doors during the performance would tend greatly to facilitate exit, we should like to ask the committee whether or not the steepness of the staircases does not nullify any good that might arise from this precaution. The slightest crush upon these stairs and serious results would ensue. With regard to the keeping open of both doors, we presume it would bo part of the duty of the police to see this attended to. If not, the time might come when it would bo found that one exit only was available. With these few exceptions, wo heartily agree with the report presented by the committee, and hope that the City Council will take such measures as will ensure that the precautions recommended in it are strictly carried out. THE CUMULATIVE SCHOOL COMMITTEE VOTE. A very important question, and one affecting the interests of the public in no small degree, was raised last night at the meeting of the East Christchurch School Committee. We allude to the cumulative vote, which, under the Education Act, householders are entitled to give at the election of school committees. Framed, no doubt, with the beat intentions, in order to allow of the voice of the minority being heard, it has been found to work most mischievously. The meetings on occasions like last night, except under very exceptional circumstances, are not very largely attended, and this provision practically enables two householders, or three at most, to put any one man they may choose in as a member, despite the fact of the majority of the meeting deeming him utterly unsuitable. That this is so in fact has been proved in the very district from whence the objection comes. A man notoriously unfit, and whose criminal

career ended in a violent death by his own hand, was under this mischievous provision foisted on to the ratepayers as a member of the school committee. What has taken place in one district may occur at any time in another, and as the law at present stands the ratepayers would be powerless to prevent it. It is true they may decline to elect the requisite number of committeemen, and thus bring affairs to a dead lock, but then they are avoiding the Scylla of an undesirable member only to bo wrecked on the Charybdis of a somewhat autocratical Board of Education. We think all will agree with us that it is not only an unnecessary provision, but is capable of doing great harm to the cause of education. In municipal matters it is true that cumulative voting obtains, but that is on the principle of the man who contributes the largest amount to the rates should have a proportionate voice in the election of those who will have to spend them. But in education matters it is different. All stand upon one platform, and while the voters should have the privilege of voting for all the members required they should not bo allowed to give all the seven votes for one man. If they desired to plump they should be allowed to record one vote and not seven, as now. We hope that the efforts of the two members of the House who have undertaken the task of moving the Govornmont'on this subject, with a view to sweeping away the cumulative vote, will receive the support of the other Canterbury members, and that next session may see the alteration desired, and which is really so necessary, carried into effect.