INCIDENT AT A FIRE.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 March 1922, Page 6

INCIDENT AT A FIRE.

A STRATFORD CONTROVERSY, COUNCILLOR AND FIRE BRIGADE. A COURT OF ENQUIRY,. (From Our Own Correspondent.) The controversy between the Stratford Fire Brigade and Councillor O. Jackson, which has existed since the fire at the Borough Council yards in January last, was brought to a head and settled on Monday night, or at least early on Tuesday morning. The incident was alleged to have taken place at a fire in the borough council yards in January last, when in the heat of the fire-fighting the trouble began. The Fire Brigade accused Cr. Jackson, among other things, of calling Superintendent Grubb “a little insignificant, undergrown pup,” these words being included in a letter received by the council from the secretary of the brigade making the charge. Cr. Jackson, in return, charged the brigade with inefficiency, and _as an outcome the Borough Council held a court of enquiry on Monday evening, all the members of the brigade being present, the Mayor (Mr. J. W. McMillan) presiding. The chamber was cleared while the machinery for the conduct of the enquiry was set up and explained by the Mayor, and the witnesses for the respective parties were nominated by Cr. Jackson and representatives of the Fire Brigade. The remaining members of the brigade were again admitted to the chamber, and the enquiry proceeded amid many interruptions and personal references until long after midnight. The brigade had said that unless an apology was forthcoming from Cr. Jackson further action would be taken. He wanted an explanation as to what that further action would be.

Superintendent Grubb said they would have to go to the Fire Brigades’ Association. The Mayor said if the council could not deal with the matter they could disband the brigade. If the brigade tried to flout the council he for one would not stand it. Fireman Croft, spokesman for the brigade, then read the secretary’s letter to the council, which has already been publl shed. SOME CHARGES DROPPED. By mutual consent, it was decided to delete all charges contained in the letter excepting that concerning the language alleged to have been used to Superintendent Grubb. Cr. Jackson absolutely denied having made the remarks complained of. Considerable evidence on both sides was then tendered. On lie motion of the Mayor the suggestions of the inefficiency of the brigade were then proceeded with. Deputy .Superintendent Rowson gave particulars of the conduct of the fire. In answer to the Mayor, he said the iron shed was quite close to the burning tar, and it could not easily be -set alight, although it might be damaged by the fire. Replying to Cr. Jackson, witness denied that he told any of the men to turn on the taps and let the tar run away from the tanks. Two witnesses declared that such an order was given by Rawson. Cr. Jackson asked Rawson if it was a proper thing for the superintendent of the brigade to ask a man who was that day acting Mayor of the town (Cr. Jackson) to shovel sand on the fire to extinguish it. / Superintendent Grubb said on'arrival at the scene he immi ately ordered the hose to be got out and told the men to prepare to save the shed/ as it was not known what was in it. There might have been explosives there. The Mayor said he wanted to know if it was not the brigade's duty to find out what was in the shed. Superintendent Grubb said it was not. Superintendent Grubb said he then asked Cr. Jackson to get some of his men and put sand on the burning tar. He paused and suddenly asked that a definite charge should be laid against the brigade and he would then be prepared to defend it. Cr. Lawson supported his attitude. Cr. Ward said he was at the fire and under the circumstances he would have done exactly what Superintendent Grubb did. QUESTION OF EFFICIENCY. The Mayor said he only wanted the brigade to state exactly what they did to put the fire out. It had been stated that the brigade had failed to extinguish the fire and an inefficient brigade was dangerous. Other councillors said it was unfair to put the brigade on trial without any definite charge, and an uproar followed. The Mayor: If the councillors did not know what the charge was, why did •they agree to an enquiry?

Cr. Ward said Cr. Jackson had made the charge and he should explain the position.

Cr. Jackson heatedly replied that when they were cornering Superintendent Grubb Cr. Lawson immediately turned in his defence. The matter was discussed at a council meeting, and the councillors had agreed that there were sufficient grounds on which to make a charge. Cr. Ward said ho thought that Cr. Jackson only wanted a clear statement of the work of the brigade because in his (Cr. Jackson’s) opinion their work <1 id not show efficiency. Cr. Jackson said the brigade, when running out the hose, got it badly twisted, and it had to be uncoupled and recoupled. Much time was wasted by pouring water on an iron shed that could not. burn. The brigade should have dropped the hose and put sand on the tar. Superintendent Gru’bb ha 1 told him (Cr. Jackson) that if he had known his business he would have put sand on the burning tar. Why should the brigade ask 4 him to do this? He maintained that in a few minutes the fire could have been put out if the brigade had been Superintendent Grubb said it appeared that Cr. Jackson was merely questioning the class of men he used for certain work. He needed men for sand work and the borough men were the best he could employ: that was why he asked Cr. Jackson and his men to apply the sand. He certainly did wait until the irregular wooden top of the tar tank was burned off so that an iron top could be fitted on to stifle the fire. THE COUNCIL’S DECISION. Cr. Ward said that when the brigade saw there was no danger to the borough buildings they were justified in leaving the borough employees to put it out. Superintendent Grilbb said they had 1050 feet of hose out, and if Cr. Jackson or anv other councillor could lay that out without getting it twisted they .■wore beti« th»u he.

After a great deal of argument Superintendent Grubb rose, in apparent desperation, and said the brigade did not put the fire out, but the borough employees did. The Mayor asked if the brigade might not have used a chemical extinguisher, and Superintendent Grubb said the extinguishers they had were quite useless. The council, at midnight, went into committee to come to a decision. Resuming after considerable argument it was reported that the following resolutions had been carried:

(1) “That the council is of opinion that Cr. Jackson did say the words complained of, or words to the same effect, but owing to the excitement; the council is satisfied that he has no recollections of the occurrence. So far as an apology is concerned, the council is of opinion that this is a matter entirely between Cr. Jackson and Superintendent Grubb.”

(2) “The council is satisfied that the charge against the brigade of inefficiency was not sustained, and is satisfied the brigade did all in its power to extinguish the fire.”