THE TOWN HALL.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3476, 3 May 1920, Page 4

THE TOWN HALL.

(To The Editor.)

Sir-,——l-laving read Mr Joblin’s reply to my letter in connection with the charges for the hire of the Town Hall, I am compelled to state that that gen~ tleman has made the issue a great deal more confusing than it was at the start. His attempt to justify the charges made for the hire of the Hall would be amusing if they were not so pathetically illogical, and with your permission, sir, I would like to point out. in detail just how much I think Mr Joblin has exceeded the limit in drawing illogical conclusions.

To dissect Mr Joblin’s letter in detail, I will refer to his first contention. He states that on December 19th the Town Hall Committee reviewed the old schedule and the charge of £8

(piano and light in addition) for the three special nights was allowed to stand, with an amendment that the three special nights be reserved for th.o~=e!ocal associations which had

lused them in past years and had es.tablished a right ‘to them by precedient. Now, Sir’, our grievance in this connection was that the precedent had not been‘ -followed. I repeat here that the sum of £3 10/ was always made the charge for local concerts on the three specia.l nights mentioned, and in making :1 charge of £9 0/6 on 'one\ of those nights, the Council de-pm-ted from the precedent set by all [previous Councils, and misinterpreted the intention -which had always been ‘given effect to. The contention now made by the Council is that the Hibernian Sports Club, the Athletic Club, and the A. and P. Society should pay £4 per night more for the use of the‘ Town Hall than any other club 01'? society. It Would be ridiculous to ex-; pect the Athletic Club or Hiberniani

[Sports Club to hold their concerts on iziny night ‘other than the Ist January and 17th March respectively, and ’there dces not appear to be any reason whatever for a special charge being’ levied on "those inghts, except in ‘accordance with the original -inten-9 tion that the charge should apply onflly to outside companies. If another‘

lsports body was formed, would the! iCoullcil make a charge of £9 to them on the night of thier sports meeting if the new club decided to hold an entertainment? : Mr Joblin’s second contention is also wrong. He states that in 1918 it was resolved that, whilst holding that requests fr.om returned soldiers, patriotic societies, would be consider-! ed on their respective merits, the! Council would favourably consider a request for 3. 50 per cent. reduction. ‘There is no resolution that this relduction would be allowed for all time ‘and for any purpose. Here aguin. Mr QJoblin evades the issue. My contenrtion was that the Council had Dl'OlT‘ised the returned soldiers a 50 per: ;cent. rebate whenever they hired the‘ {Town Hall or the Town Hall Supper!room, and that after our first difference with the Council, when we refused to pay the lessee £2O for the; use of the hall We were verbally in-I formed that in future the returned“ soldiers would have to ‘pay full rate for the hire of the Hall. The Town ' Clerk ’s letter in 1918 distinctly stated‘ ‘that on all future occasions on which!

ltne returned soldiers used the Hall a lrebate of 50 per cent would be allowed,’ and this letter also intimated that a. refund would be made in connection with entertainments for which the full rate had been paid. Now, Sir, Mr Joblin mentions the resolution concerning this rebate, but in my previous letter I.challenged the right of the Council to alter the resolution withmit notice of motion. Mr Job]-In does not say ifthe resolution was altered, _ but contents himself by [stating that there is no resolution ‘that this reduction would be allowed l . ;for all time or for any purpose. We have not yet received any written notice than the concession had been cancelled, and my contention Was, and is still, that the returned soldiers should not be asked to pay full rate for the Hall until the resolution granting the rebate has been rescinded by notice of motion Mr Joblinl must have misread my letter if he; thought I was clailning a reduction on! the ground that the st, Patrick,’s night‘ concert was for patriotic purposes. as I did. not suggest anything of the kind -

On Mr Joblin’s figures, our takings‘ at the concert. were about £BO, of which an outside company of artists received £6O. ‘According to these figures, without allowing for any other expenses, the profit would be £2O. Mr Jobiin then states that £8 are: not seem to be an unreasonable charge for an £BO house. Perhaps hot. but it represents 40 per cent of the profits. Fortunately" I\fr‘Jo'blin’s mathematics ; are as faulty "as his logic; and his} supposed argument is ridiculous be--J

Cause of the fact that the charge was not fixed on the basigxrgf What the profits would be but were fixed before hand. Does Mr.Joblin or any other Councillor really think that it is 3 ‘fair thing that 2. local sports club should be compelled to pay more for: the hire of the Hall for a single night‘. than the picture lessee pays for one‘ week?

Mr .Tob.7in states that in my refer-r enco to outside companies I seem to~ be astray, and that the lessee has theexclusive right to Saturday night only. If this is so, the conditions of lease‘are not the same as when the Hall was let for pictures, as the conditions‘ then provided that the Council had‘ the right to let the Hall on any six Saturday nights‘ in the year. Does Mr Joblin mean to imply that the conditions of lease were altered after the Returned Soldiers-’ Association was granted the use of the Hall on‘ a. Saturdzl)' night in October last? If so, the unsuccessful tenderer should have been given the right to put in'another tender under t.he altered conditions. Referring to sub-letting, Mr Joblirr evidently wishes to put his own interpretation on the regulation, which he says must be interpreted in the broad sense as prohibiting subletting permanently to any company or firm for any lengthened term. When the ire-

gulation was made, there were no permanent pictures, and the Town Hall was not leased for a term as at present. The regulation could not therefore apply when it’ was adopted to'a permanent‘ lessee sub-letting permanently tio another. In its broad sense, as interpreted by Mr Joblin, the regulaticu was not necessary, as the Council'was- always protected by the fact that the Council could selectdts tenant and’ was also protected by the conditions of lease.

l Mr Joblin has avoided any refer}ence to the fact that in October last lthe returned soldiers were asked to pay the lessee £2O for the use of the IHall when the Council, not the lessee, had the right ‘to let the Hall; neither has he referred to my statement that another company was also asked to pay the same sum for the hall on 3.‘. Saturday night. He does state, however, that the Council had the right to let the Hall on six Thursday nights, but did not explain Why one southbound company had to pass Taihape» on a Thursday, and return from Marton to show here on the Friday.-I am, etc., b E. LENIHAN.