The Difficulty Again Before the City Council. (From the " Auckland Star.")

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 34, 26 January 1884, Page 3

The Difficulty Again Before the City Council. (From the " Auckland Star. ")

January 18. Tiik vexed question of the conditions foi cutting down Emily Place again camo befove the City Council last evening. Tlu following copy of a legal opinion given bj Messrs Hesketh and Richmond to the Diocesan Trust Board was read by the Town Clerk: — "Auckland, jNT.Z., January 15, 1804. W. S. Cochrane, Esq., Secretary General Trust Board re St. Paul's Church Site. Dear Sir, — (1) We have considered youvs of the 4th and 9th of January, and have since their receipt obtained a perusal of the deeds to be executed by the City Council, the Harbour Board, and the Frozen Meat Company. (2) By these deeds the City Council undertakes to obtain permission to remove St. Paul's Church, cut down the site, and re-erect the church ; and we understand that the city now proposes to offer you the covenant to fulfil their undertaking. (3) As your solicitors, we are not prepared to advise that the Trust Board would be safe in accepting the ofl'er made by the Council. We tully acknowledge that the Council has wide powers in the way of executing city improvements, but we are not aware that they extend so far as to justify the Council undertaking the work of re-instating. The improvement may be legitimate and proper, but the law prescribes certain modes by which compensation is to be assessed. We do not think that the Council is legally authorised to enter into any such contract. It may pay the assessed compensation, but we free no juntification for its entering into such a hazardous work as re-instating St. Paul's church. (4. )Such an engagement appear-, to us to be far removed from the objects for which the City Corporation has received its legihlntiveexistenee,and y e think a ratepayer might successfully apply to the iSupiemo Court to prevent the appiopriationof the city fun'ls for such purpose. (5.) In considering this subject, it must be borne in mind that tho affixing ot the City Seal does not necessarily bind the Council. If this proposed covenant is beyond the legitimate function of the Council, it is absolutely void, and tho Board would be without any redress. (G. )Wo need scarcely refer to the difficulties that are bound to crop up in tlit, proposed work of reinstatement, but we venture to suggest that the Board should not commit itself to any Mich contract. It would be sure to land the Board in difficulties, and possibly litigation, and we strongly recommend the Board to endeavour to obtain a present cash payment for the permission now asked for. — We are, &c, (Signed) Hkskkth & KicjiMOXll.'' Appended to the report was the following copy of resolutions adopted by the Diocesan Trust Board after consideration of the above legal opinion :— "That a copy of the letter from Hesketh and Richmond (in reply to one from the Board requesting them to draw up an agreement with the City Council for the taking down and re-erecting St. Paul's Church on the present sito, at a lower level) be forwarded to-night to the City Council previous to its meeting (letter as above enclosed)." (2) " That the Trust Board adhere to their former resolution, expressing willingness to accept any agreement which u ill assure to them the re-erecti<>n of St. Paul's on the lo"« er site ; and that they are still prepared to consider favourably any proposition from the public bodies concerned in executing the work which will overcome the legal difficulties raised by the Board's .solicitor &. That a committee- consisting of the Bishop of the Diocese, Messrs Kissling, Dil worth, Boardman, Pierce, and Brett, be appointed to give effect to the foregoing resolution with power to act.' Cr. Aickin said it appeared to him to be a simple matter to legalise the question. It seemed that the City Council, and very likely the Harbour Board, had not the powerto do what they stated in the agreement. But the Frozen Meat Company could do so on their behalf, and he believed they -were ready and willing to do what was necessary. He thought the best course they could adopt would be to iefer the matter to the Legal Committee, « ith the object of having proper legal effect given to the documents, and, in fact, having them alteied so that the Frozen Meat Company might bear the responsibility invohedinthe previous decision. 'He moved: "That the letter from the Diocesan Trustees re Hesketh and Richmond's opinion be referred to the Legal Committee to report upon, w ith a view to adjusting the legal difficulty disclosed in that letter, and otherwise carrying out the resolution of the Council on this matter." Cr. Harper : Or give a monetary consideration '! Cr. Thompson : That was the previous decision. The Mayor added that this was really what had been decided upon. He suggested to Mr Aickin that they should indicate how far they would be prepared to go, and proceeded to say that they need not be afraid to mention what was town talk, that an estimate had been taken for the removal of the church, and instead of being £2,800 it was £4,800. Cr. Aickin : Our estimate was very different. The Mayor : Yes, and our architect does not go back from that estimate. Cr. Thompson pointed out that there was a previous resolution to give St. Paul's £3000 and a site, and action might now be taken in this direction. Cr. Devore said before voting for the resolution he would like it explained what Cr. Aickin meant when he said that neither the City Council nor the Harbour Board being liable, the Frozen Meat Company would assume the responsibility. Would the Company, he asked, bind themselves over when the other bodies are not liable ? The Mayor : We would pay the money. Cr Devore suggested the probability of the Board refusing to take the £3,000. They knew, too, that the estimate was £5,000, and not £4,800. None of the old materials could be used. Any member of that Board would would tell them that the cost of the church would be £6,000. The outcome of referring to the Legal Committee would simply be nothing, and he thought, therefore, that they should pay a sum of money down and make other proposals. Cr. Devore was about to move a resolution dealing summarily with the matter, and to enable this to be done, the suspension of the Standing Orders was moved. Cr. Masefield voted against the suspension, and it was consequently lost. He moved as an amendment that the following words be added to the resolution :—: — "That the Trust Board be offered the sum of £3,000 and another site in Alten Road." This, he added, was the offer previously made, but it was not to the proper authorities. The Mayor suggested that the words, "'lf we can convey it," should also be added. They would require an Act of Parliament to get an exchange of sites. Cr. Phillipps seconded the amendment. He said it had 1 been asserted 1 that St. Paul's parishioners and ,the trustees" of the Church did n'6t' want to stand" iji the way of a public improvement,^ but if ]bhey sought for £6,000 it was, evident that theyd.6Rired to wake pomething out of f&e

ratepayers, It would probably cost f 6,000 to get the church they wanted, but he was sure the one they had at present was only worth £3,000, The architect omployed by the Council estimated the removal of the present church and its re-erection with the same material at a cost of £2,800. That would haveleft the Council £200. St. Paul's parishoners agreed to that, but now a higher authority stepped in and j said they would not allow it. "When they offered their share of i! 300, they offered that which was fair and reasonable. St. Paul's people wore standing in their own light, because if they were left up on the high level they would be in a worse position. It would not look well for a body of men to stand out against a public improvement, and try to get a church built at the expense of the ratepayers. Cr. La Roche thoughtCr. Aickin's motion placed the matter on a proper basis, as the Frozen Meat Company would take their place and pay the money. The Mayor : But the Frozen Meat Company is not required to take our place in the matter of a monetary payment. It is only on the question of rebuilding. Cr. Montague said it was apparent that the Diocesan ofiice did not want to have the church re-erected on its present site. It would be a mistake to give them a site in the Park, it seemed they were determined to stand to the position, We must have £0000 or £3000 and a picked site in Auckland. Cr. Masefield explained his action in opposing the suspension of the Standing Orders. He considered that if the proposed resolution had been adopted, they would have been going back instead of forward. He thought Cr. Aickin's motion should bo adopted, "and the amendment appended to it. His opinion was that the church could be replaced for 1 3,000, if the same material, with new stuff where required, was used. This estimate was borne out by their own architect and also by practical builders in the city. It might be that the Council had not power to go into the contract, but the Frozen Meat Company had. Supposing the building did cost over £3,000, ho would be prepared to incur the additional liability of one-third of £300 or £1,000, or whatever it might be, in order to satisfy the action of the Diocesan Trust Board. He knew that some parishioners of St. Paul's did not want the church re-built on that site. Cr. Thompson said Cr. Masefiold had struck the keynote of the whole difficulty when he said the parishioners did not want the church erected on the present site. He thought it would be much better to get over the difficulty by paying a lump sum. Although these churchmen were not above milking the Corporation com- to get a better church than the present one, he would rather go beyond the f 1,000 and have the matter settled. He would prefer that the whole question go to the Legal Committee, who might talk it over and report to a special meeting. Mayor : Would the Council be willing to suggest the amount by which we might exceed the sum agreed upon ? Several members opposed that course, and thought it should bo left to the Committee. The Mayor explained that they could not convey to anyone the Alton Koad reserve with the object of their realising upon it. They would have to get an Act of Parliament to secure an exchange of sites, but while they could go there and build, he was sure they could not sell without a special Act. Cr. Devore inquired what authority there was for the statement that the Fro/en Meat Company was prepared to take on itself the whole burden of re-erecting the church, and pointed out that if this statement was warranted it would ailect the vote. Cr. Aickin said he had made the statement on the authority of the Chairman of the Frozen Meat Company. He believed it could be easily arranged. It was a matter of cost betw een the architects, and while the Council's man said £3,000 others said £G,OOO. If, after all, the matter could not be arranged, then he would go in for the stringent measure of leaving the church high and dry. Cr. Montague said he had been informed that the vestry was inclined to accept the Waken' eld -street site and £3,000. Cr. Garratt charged the Diocesan Board with a want of openness, and said the Council had been played fast and loose with by the Board, who had kept on angling with them. Following the explanation made by Cr. Aickin, the amendment was withdrawn by Cr. Devore, and the resolution carried Cr. Devore gave notice of motion that the work be proceeded with without regard to St. Paul's Church site or the Church itself.