ELECTRIC LIGHTING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 177, 29 July 1898, Page 3

ELECTRIC LIGHTING.

COUNCIL OPPOSE THE BILL

Another discussion took place at the . meeting of the City Council last evening upon the question of the electric lighting of the city. The matter was first introduced by the following letter written by Mr William Coleman:—"Gentlemen, — Mr Bingham (at present in Wellington) has instructed me to write to you to the following eS'ect:—lf you and the citizens desire the city...to be lighted by electricity, Mr Bingham respectfully requests that you will be good enough to afford, him an opportunity of competing for the lighting and similar purposes, etc. Mr Bingham begs leave to notify that he is prepared to light the city by electricity on much more favourable terms to the citizens.than those contained in the proposed private Bill called " The Auckland Electric Lighting Act, 1898." The proposed private Bill is tantamount to a concession granted gratis without competition to private promoters in perpetuity for ever and ever— unless the Corporation thinks fit sooner to buy back the concession from the promoters on terms by no means advantageous to the city. Mr Bingham, on the contrary, is prepared to offer the city, amongst other distinct advantages, a very substantial shareof the profits of the undertaking. If the private Bill referred to should happen to become law, Mr Bingham fears that he (and not only he but all other competitors) would he, for all. practical purposes, shut out from competing against the promoters of the private Bill, or if not absolutely shut out, he would he greatly prejudiced and unfairly handicapped in any competition. Mr Bingham also considers that the provisions of the private Bill authorising its promoters to break up the streets and tramways may seriously hamper him in the execution of the works to be performed by him under the City Council's concession for electric tramways. Again, if any conflict should arise between the parties executing the electric tramway works under the City Council concession and the parties executing the electric lighting works under the proposed private Bill verygreat inconvenience may be caused which is liable to be still further intensified by reason of the concessions in each case being obtained from two different sources, viz: The City Council and the Parliament ; whereas it is respectfully submitted that in these matters the City Council alone ought to have sole power and authority within the limits of the city. If you should be pleased to intimate to Mr Bingham that you are prepared to throw open the electric lighting of the city to public competition he will be glad to submit his proposals or tenders for your consideration. Mr Bingham would much prefer to do this under a general public Act enabling the corporation to grant lighting concessions subject to the appiw al of the ratepayers, who, it is considered, should have a voice in the matter. Otherwise, hut much less preferably, Mr Bingham would ask your consent to a Bill to be promoted by him granting him a lighting concession upon such terms as after due consideration you may be pleased to approve.—(Signed) William Coleman, solicitor for W. Gentry Bingham." Cr. Kidd moved that tlie letter be referred to the Streets Committee. Cr. Stichbury moved as an amendment, "That offers be invited for the right to erect posts and use the streets of the city of Auckland (such right to be approved by the City Engineer) for the purpose of supplying electric lights and power to residents, this Council giving every facility to the successful tenderer as to passing necessary bills through House of Parliament for the same, oilers to state premium or rent to be allowed to the Council. Detailed offers to be sent in to the City Council not later than Ist January, 1599." Cr. Stichbury contended that they should not give the birthright of the city away to any private company or individuals. They should get rent for the rights asked for, therefore why should they give away the rights of the city, as they certainly would if they allowed this private Bill to pass. The cheaper any person could do the work the cheaper the light would be supplied to citizens. If the Bill passed it would create a very great monopoly, one thab would affect both the trams and telegraph wires. If the Bill passed it would he a standing disgrace to the City of Auckland. It >vas true the promoters had a petition signed by a great number of people, but then almost anyone would sign a petition. He did not want the Bill to pass, so that the city would be open to deal with tenders lor the right of electric lighting. Cr. Kidd said the amendment was on the same lines as his motion. The only difference was he wanted it sent to a Committee, so that it could he kept in view no matter what became of the private Bill now before the House. The matter dealt with by Cr. Stichbury really referred to the Bill, and not the letter from Mr Coleman. He urged that it was wisest for the matter • to he carefully considered in Committee. Cr. Farrell said the Council had no authority to ask for tenders for lighting the city by electricity. The Council had the power to do the work itself, but not the right to delegate that power. The Act of 1887 conferred the power on the Council, and all that was required was- an amendment giving the Council right to delegate that power. Cr. Courtney said there could be no objection to let a Bill pass that gave no monopoly. It was just as well that people should know the Council was not opposed to the city being lighted by electricity. Not a stick could be put in without the consent of the Council even if this private Bill was passed. Cr. Beecroft said the private Bill was not at present before tlie Council. Cr. Masefield suggested that the whole matter he deferred until the Bill came before the Council. Crs. Kidd and Stichbury both consented to this course being adopted. Later on the letter from Messrs Russell and Campbell (deferred from last meeting), which asked the Council not to oppose the Bill, was read. The telegram (already published) from the Mayor asking the Council to come to some decision regarding the Bill was also read, also another stating, "Must have resolution re electric light by Friday morning." Cr. Farrell suggested that before the question was discussed, the City Solicitor should be asked to give his opinion upon the provisions of the Bill. Cr. Kidd said he was quite, prepared to hear the Solicitor's opinion, but would first move : " That this Council, desiring to accept the best proposals that may be offered for the electric lighting of the city, and disapproving of any private Bill, respectfully requests the Government to amend the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Act, 1887, by adding a clause permitting Municipal Councils to contract with persons willing to carry out such undertakings, upon'terms approved by the Councils, and to authorise the contractors to exercise the necessary powers : or, in the alternative, if the Government consider it more expedient in the public interest then that they be requested to bring in a General Public Enabling Act for the purposes above-men-tioned, similar to the lines of the Auckland. Electric Lighting Act, 1891, generalised and enlarged. Also, that copies of the foregoing resolution be [forwarded to the Government, the Mayor of Auckland, and the Auckland City members at Wellington." Cr. Kidd said he would not enlarge

upon the reasons he had against the private Bill until the City Solicitor gave his opinion. Cr. Farrell seconded this motion. Mr Thomas Cotter being called upon Ireminded the Council that ever since attempts were first made to pass an Electric Lighting Bill the City Council had consistently and continuously opposed them. It had been suggested that this opposition was really due to the Gas Company, but it was somewhat peculiar that the very first corporation applying for the right to light the city by electricity was the Auckland.Gas Company, and he was sent to Wellington to oppose it, and did so successfully. Afterwards another attempt was made by a gentleman representing the New Zealand Electrical Syndicate. That gentleman produced a Bill very similar to the present one and the Council stated they would oppose that application unless it was so altered that the Couucil was not put in a subordinate position altogether. Now tlie present Bill called the Ministry in power the Board of Control, and the result was the City Council was nobody at all. The same power was given in the Act of 1881,- hut only subject to the consent of the ratepayers. In the present Bill the words " Board of Control " took the place of the words " local authority " in the Act of 1881. A special clause was also put in that Act of 1881 so as to prevent this thing dangling for years, that if such agreement was not entered into within 12 months it lapsed altogether. Since that date the Council had invariably refused consent to any person who sought to obtain such concessions unless upon terms to be agreed upon either by the Council or the ratepayers. The present Bill-was peculiar. First of all it did not state by whom it was promoted. There was no actual company, for it stated that a company with limited liability was intended to be constructed, which meant dealing with someone they did not know anything about. That he considered a decided objection. They might hold the concessions and prevent others from doing anything. Another very important objection was that the City Council or local authority could do no- , thing without being subject to the super- ; vision of the Board of Control. Section 3 said the Board of Control should be the Governor-in-Council, which meant the Governor and the members of the Ministry. It could make rules and regu- , lations for the control of the Company. , The Board of Control might also delegate its powers to the Electric Telegraph Com- i missioner. All efforts towards progress j were in the direction of decentralisation, but here was a means provided by which , all questions with regard to electric light- , ing of the city of Auckland could be dele- - gated to a gentleman resident in Welliiig- , ton called the JElectric Telegraph Commis- . sioner. It was said this Bill did not create , a monopoly, and certainly within the four j corners of the Act there were no words ( stating that it did, but they knew if an Act was placed upon the. Statute ( Book giving certain power, and that . similar power could only be obtained by getting another Act passed, it practically meant that the first Act did . create a monopoly. It was for that very . reason the Council opposed the Bill brought forward by the Gas Company. Had the Council had the controlling voice and power under that Bill there would not have been any objection. Then with regard to the deposit of £1,000, it was not absolutely set forth that the deposit should be placed down. It was provided that if the Board of Control, or if powers were delegated, the Electric Telegraph Commissioner were satisfied a bond for that amount would do. Nor was it stated in the Bill that sum would revert to the Council if the agreement was not carried out. If' it went to anybody it was the Board of Control; The Bill did, however, provide for the repayment of that £1,000 from time to time in moieties as the work proceeded. There was not a single word sayinsr the £1,000 must remain until the work was- completed. Another peculiar thing about the Act was that there was not a single word stating when the work should be commenced. They all knew the difficulty they had about tying up the tramways for two years, but in this Act there was nothing to prevent it being tied up from 2£ to 3 years. No penalty could be inflicted upon the company earlier than two years and six months from the commencement of the Act. By giving this bond these persons could cease from active operations for 2\ years. Was it for the Council to consent to the passing of the Bill so that £1,000 was to be given to the General Government if the work was hot done 1 It was also peculiar that in 1891 they had exactly the same objections to raise to the Bill then proposed, and the clauses were repudiated by the Council. The provisions under which the Council could purchase the electric lighting were subject to the same objections as those under the tramway proposals. The Council could purchase' at stated tintes, but it would have to pay back the original amount expended on construction and on all repairs and 10 per cent, per annum.' That really meant the vendors could charge the Council what they liked so long as a voucher was produced. If they took over at the end of 10 years, the Council haa also to pay for the goodwill as well. The other terms were 21 and 42 years and to his mind it meant locking up tlie purchase for 42 years, because the Council would never pay the sum that could be demanded under the provisions of the Bill. It was not for him to say what^ the Council should do in the matter. He" was only pointing out the provisions which were absolutely against local control, that put the Council in the position of having to bow humbly before the Board of Control* or the Electric Telegraph Commissioner. Another matter was, if the concessions were of value why should not the Council have gain and some control, as in the case of the tramways. Another point is that the city engineer was practically ignored altogether in the matter. Mr Cotter finished by saying, "These, gentlemen, are my remarks on the Bill." Cr. Cairns: Does not the Bill provide for the appointment of .inspectors by the City Council. Mr Cotter said the inspectors were only to regulate the supply and test the meters, hut clause 38 did certainly provide that the Council might pay the inspectors. (Laughter) Cr. Farrell: What provision is there in the Bill for taking the opinion of the ratepayers ? Mr Cotter : That is all included in the Board of Control: Cr. Hewson : What is the position of the councillors and ratepayers ? Mr Cotter: As near being ignored as they could safely be with any decency. Cr. Trenwith (Acting Mayor): After what Mr Cotter has said it seems to me there is no need for any discussion to take place. Cr. Kidd's motion condemning the Bill was then adopted unanimously, and at the suggestion of Cr. Hewson the words were added, " and that an urgent telegram be sent to the Government stating that the Council had unadimously decided to oppose this Bill." Cr. Kidd then again brought forward his motion that Mr Coleman's letter be referred to the Streets Committee.

Cr. Stichbury withdrew his amendment, and the motion was adopted.