MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2547, 7 June 1882, Page 3

MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

In compliance with a requisition received by the Mayor of Sydenham, a public meeting of burgesses was held last evening in the Oddfellows’ Hall, Sydenham, to consider the Drainage Board’s Amending Bill, and the Fire Brigades Bill, which it is proposed to lay before Parliament during this session. The Mayor occupied the chair. About ninety persons were present. The Chairman stated that the Drainage Board had treated them with apparent indifference, yet he was willing to give the members of the Board credit for wishing to act honestly, according to their light. The working men o£ Sydenham had been anxious to have pipes or drains to carry off the storm water. With the exception of the secretary, all the officers of the Board treated the Sydenham people with contempt, and ignored their complaints and wants. The flashing to be of any avail should be continuous. The members of the Board had not thought fit to grace this meeting with their presence, but the Sydenham people should show that their just claims were not to be ignored any longer. Mr B, Muffett said Mr John Ollivier had been twitted as “ the old man with the crotchet,” and it was urged that the Sydenham people, who had been slighted all through the piece, cared little about the subject. But the attendance at this meeting indicated differently. Mr Muffett moved—“ That this meeting is of opinion that the Drainage Board Bill to amend the Drainage Act is unnecessary, and beyond the requirements of the sparsely populated borough of Sydenham.” Mr O. Samuels seconded the motion.

Mr T. Graham enquired if Sydenham could not be separated from Christchurch altogether. The Chairman replied that this was an object held in view for a long time, but the city liked the borough’s money too mu?h for that. [Laughter.3 Mr W. H. Lockwood found fault with the 9in pipes being laid down in the borough, as useless.

Mr John Lee, who, at the chairman’s invitation took a seat on the platform, amid much applause, deprecated the burgesses regarding this question in any other light than as a national question, and spoke iu favor of the motion.

The motion was passed unanimously. Mr Jas. Crowley moved—“ That this meeting protests against the action of the Drainage Board in constructing a system of deep sewers for the purpose of taking away excreta and house slops, in defiance of the protest of the ratepayers, and at the same lime neglecting to provide means for taking away the storm water, which are so urgently required. The meeting also protests against the unfairness of the Board continuing to charge the district with the cost of works from which it does not derive any benefit, and for a scheme which the Board has not sufficient funds to complete.” Mr Crowley characterised the action of the Board as a system of tyranny. Mr Brocklehnrst seconded the motion, which was carried nnanimously. Touching the Fire Brigades Bill, a letter was received from Mr W. White, Jnnr., M.H.8., stating that he was inclined, from a casual glance, to oppose it, not thinking the Council should have special rating power for the purpose unless the ratepayers agreed to it by u poll being taken upon the question, as would be the case for a loan. The Chairman remarked that last session the measure having passed the Lower House, was lost in the Council, chiefly owing to objections raised by members sympathising with the insurance companies. Mr Leveatam’a present Bill was partly based on the previous Bills. This Bill, of interest to local bodies, sought to give power to City Councils, &3., to levy rates not exceeding a penny in the £ for the purchase and maintenance of engines and other appliances necessary to extinguish fires, local bodies were to be entrusted with the duty of extinguishing tires, and to maintain a force of firemen, or agree with a volunteer fire brigade or other persons to do so. Considerable powers were to bo conferred on the chief fire inspector, and damage to property in extinguishing fires was to be deemed damage by fire within the moaning of a policy of insurance. Last session’s measure, re quiring the companies to contribute towards the support of fire brigades—a vary important matter—had beeu omitted from Mr Levestam’s Bill.

Mr Graham thought that before this matter was gone into a resolution should be passed to pay no drainage rate. He moved—“ That the ratepayers of Sydenham refuse to pay drainage rates.”

Mr John Lee seconded the resolution pro forma. Bunds should be got first; then the services of an “ honest solicitor" —[laughter] —should be procured ; and success would be assured. The resolution was carried.

Mr Lockwood moved—" That a poll be taken to test the feeling of Sydenham in the matter,” but did not press the motion. Reverting to the question of the Fire Brigades Bill, Mr Muffett pointed out that there was no provision afisoting the insurance companies. He had received a letter from Mr White, stating that the words “ Road Boards ” were proposed to be omitted. Mr Muffett quoted statistics to show that the Sydenham insurance rates were excessive. The amount of property insured ia Canterbury was £2,195,000. Large companies in the colony, such as that of Messrs Guthrie and Liro»»h, had suffered from the general trade depression, but the insurance companies continued to pay large percentages. Mr Muffett moved —“ That this meeting is of opinion that the Fire Brigade Bill now before Parliament is unfair in ito principle, and that the duty of providing for the extinguishing of fires should bo imposed upon the insurance companies, and the expense of the same defrayed by them in proportion to the fire premiums received by the respective companies.” Mr Lockwood seconded the motion, which was carried. Mr Baird moved—“ That the Mayor bo requested to forward a capy of the resolutions passed by the meeting to the members of Parliament for the borough, and lint a copy of the resolutions on the drainage question be olso sent to the Drainage Board.” This was seconded by Mr Graham, and earned. Mr Graham moved—" That unless the existing combination of the Canterbury insurance companies to keep the- premiums tor insurance up to the present excessively high rates is broken up v.ithin one month from this date tbe ratepayers of this district will support the eetablishment of a mutual fi:o insurance association.” [Loud applause/] Mr John Leo seconded the motion. Mr W. H- Espenett drew attention to the necessity" for a good]local swimming bath, and wi-s supported by Mr Webber, who also advocated the formation of such a company as that proposed, so that residents should be able to use their own money within the borough. Mr McVey Baird argued that this should be taken up c* a colonial and not as a boron.h question, insurance rates in New Zealand generally being exoessive. In Australia such a company as that proposed had recently pa d ■l3 per c.nt.; 20 per cent, being added to reserve fund, and 10 per cent, returned as a bonus to insurers. He added that stens were now being taken to form a New Zsalsn. Mutual Fire Insurance Co. In Australia 7i or 8s was charged for the same advantages i s one had to pay £1 for here. He had muc i pleasure in supporting the motion; The resolution was carried, and the prceodings ended with a vote of thanks to the chairman,