CLOUDED MORAL ASPECT

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 207, 21 November 1927, Page 14

CLOUDED MORAL ASPECT

Dixieland Baths Inquiry AN EXTRAORDINARY MOTION CROSS-EXAMINATION at the Dixieland Baths Inquiry, continued this morning, was largely confined to the moral aspect and failed to produce anything concrete. The Council of Christian Churches forwarded a motion protesting against the granting of the licence “purely on moral grounds.”

rpilE introduction of the case for J- Dixieland was commenced late in the morning, when evidence was called with the object of showing that the proposed baths could not affect the extent of the beach detrimentally. Mr. G. C. Godfrey, Secretary for Marine, and Mr. L. B. Campbell, Public Works engineer, are the commissioners, and Mr. J. Stanton represented the city and Mr. Northcroft Dixieland, Ltd. . . . Mr. W. Allen, representing Point Clievailer Sailing Club, objected to the baths in the proposed position, owing to it interfering with the limited sailing facilties, and on thp ground that the beach was likely to be seriously damaged. The first place proposed v as far better than the second. They preferred the bay on the north-east, and were prepared to leave the erosion question to the engineers. Mr. F. N. Andrews, president of the • ouncil of Christian Congregations, which, he said, concerned Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregal iorialists and Baptists, placed a motion of protest before the inquiry, and said he objection was solely on moral grounds. Mr. Northcroft submitted him to a • ross-examinatiop, but admitted at the end:— “I am afraid I must give it up. I • an't get any reason from the witness for this extraordinary resolution." * Mr. Andrew's said the council confined 35 members, and they considered their opinion was the opinion of he congregations they represented. Mr. Northcroft: Exactly what danger to morals do you contemplate? Mr. Andrews: We think there is always danger. Why? Is it mixed bathing?—That is a factor. Do you think it was desirable under the old conditions that dressing and undressing had to be carried out in the tea-tree?—l don’t. Witness said he had never been at Point Chevalier. Is there any law to prevent young people going on the beach and bathing with no lights and no supervision?—l know of none. If we had a report that anything was going on on the beach conducive to immorality w r e should take action. You have never heard of. anything justifying a protest?—Not on this beach. We have on others. If you have not, up to the present, heard of any impropriety on this beach unlighted and unsupervised, will you tell me what you contemplate happening in a bath well supervised and liberally lighted?—Witness did not make a definite reply, but said a private bath was not* so easily controlled. LOSS OF BEACH TO PUBLIC Mr. G. Stone, of the Labour Committee, objected not on the moral ground but on the ground that no portion of a beach should be taken from the public. They had no objection to the baths being built on the first place suggested. Miss Carnahan, of the Women’s National Council, objected on the ground that the beaches should not be encroached on in any way. This was the broad principle of their policy. Mr. Northcroft: Did the council protest against the ruination of Judge’s Bay?—l cannot say. “There are cases where expediency over-rules sentiment ?”—‘Where are you going to stop it? The needs here are doubtful. I would never admit the necessity for expediency." This closed the evidence for the objectors, and Mr. Northcroft opened Dixieland, Ltd.’s case. He said the position had been clarified and the objections were two, (1) whether the beach would be endangered, and (2) whether private enterprise should be allowed. The women’s organisations, though jealous of the morals of the city, would not admit that they had any objection on this ground. Regarding Mr. Andrews, he must say that he seemed to try and support an entirely illogical position. The council could not say that it represented the unanimous view of its congregations. It was obviously absurd. At the most he was representing the ©pinion of a few pious gentlemen present when the resolution was passed. Tho truth was, of course, that the morals at Point Chevalier would be much better protected by these baths thaa under the present conditions. It seemed incomprehensible that young ladies dressed for dancing would risk their appearance and complexions in the baths. The sole effect would be to prevent promiscuous bathing and generally improve the position. If the ladies did not raise the moral question he suggested that the inquiry did not need to concern itself. The residents had not complained, and there was nothing whatever to support moral objections. INCREASING POPULARITY OF BEACH Tho questions therefore concerned the beach. The company's idea was not to profit from the baths, as to Increase the popularity of the beach where it had property. Obviously they

increased their profits from these by increasing popularity. If the public foreshore was not to be used for private profit, then freezing works and coal companies could not build or have wharves on the waterfront. He could see no difference in this to allowing hawkers on the street. The proposal only meant a distinct improvement to the Point. Boat sheds and so on had been given to private bodies by a generous Harbour Board, and at Bayswater what was nothing but a private bath was allowed. All these had helped the city. None of the women’s organisations had objected to these, and he could not escape the conviction that if it had not been a cabaret company no objection would have been made. "There is a good deal of idle and unfair inuendo, but not a scrap of evidence, and if there had been any evidence the inquiry would have been flooded with it." They did not propose to interfere with the beach at all, only to improve the facilities, tl was absurd to suggest that the bath would abate the pleasures of the beach. DOG-IN-MANGER ATTITUDE The City Council did not propose to build baths and was acting in a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Many people, in any case, had grave fears when they saw the City Council undertaking anything in the nature of trading. Night bathing had been allowed at Parnell once, and he knew that they bathed there at night, caretaker or no caretaker. If the council manned the baths and lit them they would secure an enormously increased income. The council would not allow them to put baths on the first site, or round the corner, and now objected when they had in the Supreme Court said, with forensic display, "Let Dixieland build in front of its own premises." At this stage the Rev. Lionel Fletcher said they were unitedly and strongly of opinion that on moral grounds baths should not be allowed a. private company. It was merely a question of control. Mr. Northcroft: You have not approached your congregations?—No. But we know our people. "Can you be more precise than Mr. Andrews as to the wrong?"—As far as I am concerned we are a young city, and we don’t want to make a mistake. "Does your council prefer the present unlighted unsupervised bathing?"— Rather than private baths. Witness said that whatever improprieties were occurring on the beaches at present they were not worth worrying about. Mr. Godfrey: The beach is not a public place, and there can be no prosecution. —Well, even knowing that, I object to the private baths. He said they objected to a private company, and the fact that it was* a cabaret company intensified it. Mr. R. F. Moore, who prepared the design for the proposed baths, in expert evidence, considered that conditions were such that the building of the baths would have no effect whatever on the beach. The point acted as a groyne now. There was practically no wave action, and the baths would not affect the position. Mr. F. E. Powell, engineer and assistant chief engineer to the Harbour Board from 1903 to 1912, considered that the present beach was formed from shell fish beds in the harbour. There might be some forming of sand on the land side of the baths, this coming from the immediate surroundings. He could not see that any sand would shift on the main beach.