PROPOSED NEW REFUGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 167, 17 July 1888, Page 5

PROPOSED NEW REFUGE.

ANIMATED DISCUSSION AT THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

REPORT BY THE EXPERTS.

Tins Committee appointed by the Board to inspect the sites available for the position of anew Refuge reported to the Charitable Board last evening as foLlows :—" We have examined the Ellerslio reserve of 50 acres and the One Tree Hill site of seven acres, and have selected the latter as the one on which the Refuge should be erected. This decision has been arrived at by a majority of three, whoso signatures are attached. (Signed)— T. M. Philson, F. W. Wright, and Wm. Stockwell. . The four undersigned members of the Committee are of opinion that both of these sites aie, however, much inferior in every respect to that in the present hospital ground. (Signed)—T. M. Philson, W. H. Hales, F. W. Wright, Wm. Stockwell." A memorandum was appended as follows:—" The question of the present Hospital site being outside of the instructions of the Committee, 1 have declined to consider it. (Signed)—Jamks Stewart."

The Chairman moved, " That the decision of the experts with regard to th_> One Tree Hill site be adopted, and at the same time he said he must express regret that these gentlemen, not only professional men, but men having some knowledge of business, should have thrown an apple of discord upon this subject again, lie thought it was a pity that the experts had gone outside of the record, but as the Board had pledged itself to abide by their decision, he would move, " That the first two sections iv the report be adopted." A member of the Board suggested that the Chairman should move the adoption of tho reporb as a whole, but the Chairman declined to do so.

Mr Dignan thought that the report should first be received. They could discuss what action ought to be taken afterwards. Mr Crowther seconded the motion fro forma. He was oxtremely sorry that they had to go over this business again, it seomed as if they had a. coat that was too good for them. He would liko to accept Mr Dignan's suggestion to receive the report and discuss tho subject ac their nexfc meeting. He thought tho " rider " was usually the most important, part of a verdict, and he never yot heard of a judge ignoring a " rider." Mr Buckland : The rider does nob alter the verdict.

Mr Atkin : It shows where the error is, though. Mr Isiccol moved as an amendment, "That the report be received." He thought it would be very hardy on the part of tho Board to tly in the face of the experts' report as to their recommendation of the Hospital site, and he thought the Board should not let any sentimental or fancy notions stand in tho way of their doing what they thought tho proper thing. He thought that, there was little doubt that had tho experts been left frco as to the choice of a site, they would have selected the Hospital site. Mr Atkin seconded tho amendment. Tho statement of tho medical experts should, he thought, bear some weight. lie could not understand the objections to the Hospital site, for thcro was plenty of room there for many yeajs to. come. ThoCommission simply told them that they had submitted two sites and had overlooked tho best one, and that the bee' 6 thing they could do was to go back to it..

Mr Buckland s'ajd that the Commissioners in dictating to the. Board were usurping a position whicb (it(wrought nob- bo-occupy. 'Ho-could not help "thinking that the Hospital site had been pub rather prominently before them.

Mr Crcvpther and the Chair&san denied the soft impeachment. Mr Buckland added thufc all the talk about lack of shelter at Ellerslie was simply rubbish.

Mr Udy saidhc would support Mr Niccol's amendment.

'Mr Sturgcs said he would support the motion, for although he believed the Elleislie site to bo the best, Ife saw bhero was a necessity for some compromise. The Chairman said that tho Board was remarkable for inconsistency in this matter. At the last meeting1 they resolved to put the Hospital site on one side and accept one or other of two sites which were submitted to ti committee of experts. Tho Board bound themselves to carry out the report of these experts, provided a majority of the number signed it. The majority had done so, but unfortunately they had gono out of their way to introduce other matters, and the result seemed to be to make the Board once more inconsistent. Tho putting of the Refuge on the Hospital site was a question of policy, with which tho experts had nothing whatever to do, because the Board came to the conclusion a fortnight ago that they would not crowd the Hospital ground with a Refuge, which would be extended as pauperism extended. It appeared that this struggle about the Hospital site was coming on again. He was tired of these inconsistencies, and he would not come back to the Board again unless the report of the experts was adopted or rejected that night. If they were going to fight the. battle over again somebody could take his place, for he would nob preside over so inconsistent a Board. He did not hold this out as a threat, but he would not go back upon the question of the Hospital site for any men living. He had said over and over again that it would be a ruinous thing to put our workhouses on the Hospital site, and he would be no party to such a thing. For the medical men to lug it in to create another discussion was, he considered, most unwise. He was quite willing to give way on the Ellerslie site, bub he would not gp back again one step, and he would not come back to the Board if the motion were nob carried. He would not fight the battle over again. Mr Buckland : You are quite right. The amendment was pub to the meeting and carried by 5 against 4. The Chairman said that had the motion been carried, he would have moved that the Board advertise for architects' designs, so as to get another step forward. Mr Buckland said he-was inclined to pursue the same course as the Chairman, and he would move as a further amendment, "That the Board deal with the matter forthwith." The Board had, been inconsistent in this matter, and had been shifting about in all sorts of ways. Mr Udy : I object to that. Mr Buckland : You can object as much as you.like when lam done. You have been as inconsistent as anybody, jumping about like a cock-sparrow. Mr Afkin : Yes, he has been here every evening, and not two nights a year like some have.

Mr Buckland : Yes, I know that; but if the amendment is rejected I shall be inclined to follow the Chairman, and retire from the Board.

Mr Crowther: And we'll get better men. Mr Buckland : A great deal better men, and I hope- you'll get a- better colleague. Mr Buckland then added that he had consistently favoured the Ellerslie site, and that it would be folly to crowd the Refuges on the Hospital grounds. Mr Crowther seconded the amendment pro forma, to show Mr Buckland how silly and inconsistent they were. He repudiated the suggestion that the Commission had been " got ab," and that there had been an intrigue.

Mr Buckland : No ; no,

Mr Crowther : Well, it means the same thing, and if that is the morality of parliamentary training—insinuating as to the honesty of one's confreres-rjt; is degrading to

them. For my part, I deny with emphasis that the exports were got at, and I believe that neither the Chairman nor any member of the Board "got at "them. I think Mr Buckland's methods are of the bull-dog sort, and there is no doing business on such lines.

Mr Dignan said that when the experts, as conscientious men, thought it advisable to put a " rider " to their reporb, when the doctors signed one way and the engineers the other way, the Board would nob be going out of their way to ask for time bo consider the matter further, and make up their minds about one of the two sites. They had, of course, waived their judgment with respect to the Hospital site, and they could not consistently consider it now. ' ■

Mr Udy said he did not ccc that by deferring the matter the whole affair was to be fought over again. He did not want to sec the Chairman lose his temper again because he could nob get what ho wanted. The Chairman : Oh, I'll not lose my temper. I only say that I'll not be the medium of so many inconsistencies.

Mr Udy went on to say that he was very much in favour of the Epsom site, which he had advocated from the first, and he denied the charge that he had been hopping from twig to twig. Mr Ambury said when Mr Crowther moved such a resolution as he did, committing the Board bo act on the recommendation of the experts arid the Board had adopted it, the least they could do was to abide by their decision. It was only playing with business, and not like the actions of men, to go on as the Board had been doing. Ho did not see any difficulties in the way of building on the Epsom site, and he would certainly vote for it.

Mr Atkin said that he had been '.n favour of the Epsom site, but when he, saw that four out of five experts went out of their way to recommend the Hospital site he did not think the Board would reject such a recommendtvtion on the spur of the moment.

Tho Chairman said that if it was a matter of finding medical men to settle the matter he would guarantee-to provide 20 medical men bo-morrow who would all vote ag-ainst the Hospital site being used for our refuges and workhouses.

Mr Crowther : Why, the Hospital is only a workhouse !

The Chairman :' No, it ia not; and I hope to make ib something better than it is yet. So far as i can gauge public opinion, it has only been suggested to me by one man to build the Ilefuge on the Hospital site, and 1 have had scores of men of intelligence and standing in tho town who have applauded the effort being made to gob the Refuge away from the Hospital. Cr. Crowfcher: And my advisers have gone in exactly the opposite direction. The Chairman : I feel strongly that the object of deferring this reporb is simply to have the battle of the sites over again.

Mr Crowther : It in not true,

The Chairman : Ib is my opinion. Mr Atkin : It is your suppositions and personalities that make all the dissension. The Chairman : I'll vote for Mr Buckland's amendment, and if it is lost I go.

Mr Niccol said he would not hesitate to say plainly that his reason for moving the amendment wa3 to give time for consideration. Because they had done a foolish thing, was no reason why they should not go back on it. If they had recognised the possibility that the experts would report in the way they had done— three ono way and four tho other, while one of the number gave an independent opiirion—they would not have appointed them. It would bo a mistake to take action on their report; on what they would again regret. As between Ellerslie and Epsom, ho was strongly convinced that the Ellerslie .site was preferable. There were some objections to put tho Refuge on the Hospital site, but he thought under existing circumstances of tho city they would be quite justified in using that piece of ground tor the purpose. In cities two or three times tho sizo of Auckland, refugoa vvero in close proximity to the city. Tho Chairman: Tho tendency is the other way. Mr IS'iceoi added that he believed it would bo both profitable and economical to have bhe Refuges on tho present site for many years to come. The Chairman had twitted him with having rushed to a decision tho same as they were asked to do to-night, and there was no necessity that the matter should be run through now. Tho Commission had no doubt done what was best, and they had thought it thoir duty to say that the Hospital sito was preferable to the others. The engineers had not recommended the Epsom site, and there must bo some strong reason for that, so he thought that no harm could result from the Board taking further titn« to consider tho whole matter.

Tho question wa9 then put, when the amendment was lost, and Mr Niccol's motion, "That the report be received," v/as carded by 5 against 4. The voting was— For the motion : Messrs Niccol, Crovvther, Abkin, Udy, and Dignan, Against: Messrs Buckland, Mays, Ambury, and Sturges. ___