LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISCUSSION.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXII, Issue 42799, 31 October 1905, Page 2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISCUSSION.

TO THE EDITOR. Joshua : “ My dear brethren, we are here to devise a new scheme for the improvement of local Government. I have guided the ship of state for thirty yaars. I have tried all experiments, hut in vain, I cannot give any satisfaction. I an). gradually drifting on the rocks, I want your assistance in my troublcg.” Moses: “I havo faithfully assisted thee, whether right or wrong I was an humble follower, I shall always support your skilled policy. The ratepayers adore the ground we walk upon ; thoy are going to erect a monument to each of us." Association : "Thoy are going to erect a monument to commemorate tho deliverance from two of the greatest incapables that ever served on any Public Body in New Zealand. Too long we have slumbered in the Piako, looking tit your gross extravagence. Your Sfeministration is no credit to any Local Body. ’ ’

'Joshua: "Oh, ungrateful creatures, what sacrifices I made for thee; one more chance and I shtdl faithfully promise that I will buy more machines, breed our own horses, grow feed oats aifd turnips on the County reserves, buy motor cars fair m.Y employees, piise tho salary of the Clerk and fyigiqccF, aqd 4puhlo the County rato so us to cnahlo me to carry out my reforms.” Association : Wo shall enable you to carry out your reform ß in the Scotchman's Valley; it shall ho lfiioiyn iu future as tho Valley of Death. On Guy Eaiykc’s day, 10QH, wo shall attend your funeral, R. I. P.” Solomon : "I havo sat in tho same chamber with Joshua and Moses ; I havo watched their methods of local administration ; I have done my level best to check their extravagence ; I have stood alone defending the rights of my follow-man, I will assist the Association in consigning both to—to whore there are no machines to grade the roads. Joshua: " Solomon, yon havo always dono your best to injure mo in the eyes of my people; what more can I tlo for them!’ lam going to buy up all tho ti-troo in the Waitoa Riding so as to have a good supply for fascining tho roods under my care.” Moses: "It is only wasting money gravelling roads when wo havo an unlimited supply flf ti-troo in tho district.” Asancintmn: "Ti-troo might satisfy Joshua and Moses ; it will not satisfy U)f, reformers ip the Piako County; they are determined h, havo a change in tho local Government. Wo shall havo a full parade of nil our troops under the command of Utmoral Solomon, Instructions will bo from lund-quarters: carry nil redoubts, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet.” After tho Battle (Joshua and Moses, mortally wounded) ; General Solomon buries Joshua and Moses with full military honours, tho band playing the dead march, do. Tito poor old chap, wo laid at rest Down in yon valley low; His bones tiro cold, his (sole) is blessed . Among the Angols down below. S' JOTIUMV

To TBE EDI" OR

Sir,—l should like, withyourpermission, to reply to “ Inquirer’s ” questions published in your last Thursday’s issue 1. The request for a “ definite scheme is absurd, ■where there is no skilled economist with all the figures of the revenue and expenditure of the country before him to answer it. That No-liccnse presents no great financial difficulty may be seen at once from the two following facts?—(l) The silence of financiers on the subject: (2) that -taxation falls ultimately on production, and No-license only affects one form of distribution. I would fdvise Inquirer to read “The Economic Aspect of the Drink Problem,” by T. P Whitaker, M. P. 2. Considering the immense rent that the bar imposes on the hotel, and the great comfort of many boarding-houses, I think they could. No one is qualified to give an experts opinion on this except an hotel-keeper; and an hotel-keeper’s opinion, inasmuch as it is not disinterested, cannot claim reliability. 3. I do not know, but should hesitate before accusing any Te Aroha hotel-keeper of incompetency in any branch of his business.

4. We believe so. 5. We feel sure of it. 6. Only Messrs Wesley Spragg, Speight, and Hobbs could answer this. 7. See answer 2.

8. In the first place this begs the question that superior accommodation is due to license. But admitting this for the sake of argument, the moral element does not necessarily enter into No-license. Let me describe a position which is not necessarily my own, but which I conceive may be quite logically held: A man, not necessarily a total abstainer, sees, in the present system of license, economic advantages and disadvantages. Because he thinks No-license will increase the proportion of advantage is no reason why he should not make use personally of advantages that at present exist. Here is a parallel : I believe m the freehold tenure of the land, but if the leasehold system obtains, and I want to go on the land, am I debarred by my views on freehold from taking a piece of leasehold property ? 9. I do not know, but even if true this does not affect the argument against public bars. 10. No. Of the leaders instanced above, Wesley Spragg and Speight are not Wesleyans. I believe Hobbs is, but he is not, so T am told, a No-license man. Isitt is a Wesleyan, but Mrs Harrison Lee is an Anglican, Pastor Davies a Baptist, and J. Brown belongs to the Church of Christ. The absurdity of this question will appear when I state that the Wesleyans in New Zealand number about 70,000, including men, women, and children, while the No-license vote of 1902 totalled 151,524 (continuance 148,449). We may say for the information of the questioner, that Cromwell lived before Wesley. 11. Tire only people hit by the closing of the hotels as far as Borough finances are concerned, are the total abstainers, most of whom want them closed. Weleavethe question to all moderate drinkers whether they would be the poorer, even in the event of an extra farthing rate, if they had not the nuisance under our existing code of manners of having to take six drinks instead of one they want, many times on entering a hotel and meeting acquaintances. —I am, etc., Top Liner.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In your report of the Borough Council’s meeting of last week, which appeared in your issue of the 26th inst., I notice a statement made by Cr Thomas to the effect that the members of the Fire Brigade were not insured. and that if an accident occurred the Council and ratepayers would be liable. I was unavoidably absent from the meeting, or I should have again expressed a similar Anew on the matter to that which I have already expressed at several previous Council meetings, One of the principal objects in voting an annual ascertained sum to the Fire Brigade was to obviate the necessity for any tarn ranee against accidents by the Council. It is clearly established that where no contract of service exists, a Borough Council is not liab 9 for accident to any member of a voluntary Fire Brigade. Granting a subsidy of £25 does not involve any contract of . service, and consequently the Borough Council would he in no way liable. Accidental Insurance is a matter for the Fire Brigade’s own consideration, and is a subject upon which the Council has m right to dictate. I myself moved that the Brigade be subsidised annually to the extent of £25, and there was nothing in that motion to the effect that this sum w..s to include, or provide for, insurBu ;e, nor was it so intended by me. . I trust that you will be able to find space in your c dumps for the insertion of this letter, as I wish it to be cl.arly understood that I am in entire disagreement with what I consider an absolute mistatemont of law, and a distinct error (so far as lam myself concerned) of the conditions under which the subsidy was granted.—l am, etc., Ciias. Wallis.