CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9521, 14 September 1896, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

CAMPING AT SUMMER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THK PJIES3. Sir, —When writing you re the above I had nob before mc, as 1 now have, the proposed by-law and the alleged reasons for the same. Space will not permit of my dealing with each clause seHitim as I should like to do. I will therefore prefer niy remarks on the moat particular point, viz., clause 27 — " Persons receiving permission shall pay therefore in advance a fee of 5s for each and every wesk." The anomaly of such a clause is so apparent and ultra virts to common law that should the campsvs think fit to oppose it no Council could obtain a conviction for-the non-compliance therewith. Mr Crawford explains that 5s was fixed partly with a view to providing funds to pay the cost of supervision.

In the same report it is stated that last season as many as eighty tents were counted at oue time. Take this number at 5s a week and we have £20 a week Ao lay out for the supervision of tents. The Council are acting under the authority of clause 422, part 2, sub-section F of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which is as follows :— •*• May pass by-laws for regulating the erection of tents and other temporary structures." Every Council acts on this power, and in any erection which they deem unsafe or that might create a nuisance they demand an alteration or prohibit it altogether ; but what Council ever attempted to say "pay us 5s a week and "we will tolerate it ? " The same argument applies to the two complaints alleged by the Council necessitating the by-law, viz., neglect of sanitary precautions and not observing rules of decency. The Council have already by-laws in force regulating both these nuisances. For sanitary precautions each camp last year was served with a notice, which in some cases was duly conformed to, while in others who disobeyed theCouncilhad.heirr.medy. _lien on the question of decency, did they not last year act on their by-law and obtain convictions ? If they have these by-laws on record why should they further leg/slate ?

It seems quite clear that the Council, finding that they cannot cope with a nuisance, turn round and say, "Oh, we will tolerate it if you pay us 5s a week." I understand the Council meet on Monday night to decide the question, and I should like to here draw their attention to one fact they have overlooked. At Sumner there are two classes of campers—resident camperswho stay there for three months and more, and have every convenience attached to their tents, and holiday campers .who come down, for a week and make things " hum," as tiiey call it. The difference oi the two classes is plain, and the Council would do well to accommodate rather than restrict campers who comply with their by-law to the letter. ~

Hoping the Council will be influenced by a common sense of justice, and see fit to alter or rescind this by-law,—Yours, &c, A.D. Christchurch, 14th September, 1896. TO THE EDITOR OF THIS PRESS. Sir, —I see from your issue of 12th inst. that the Sumner Borough Council is at last taking a much-needed step to control the campers for the future, and not* before it is wanted. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I must say that the habits of soma of the campers have been very objectionable, aud certainly want regulating. A3 a great number camp hers every summer and derive a great benefit without paying rent, I don't think they should grumble at being called upon to pay the small sum of 5s per week for the right of erecting a tent, 'and as the tents usually hold four or five, it would only run about ls per head per week. "A. D.'V comments on this subject are rather one-sided. He forgets that people have invested a lot of money in houses at Sumner for letting purposes, to which these camps are a considerable drawback, so that the threat to "seek fresh fields and,pastures new" would be a decided advantage to those who have to pay heavy rates for water, sanitary matters, _c. It is not the single men that the ratepayers object to so much as the married ones with their wives and families. I trust the Council will strictly enforce the 5s per week for each tent and nothing less, considering the cheap outing the campers get the best part of the summer months. If the campers cannot afford the 5s per week then all I can say is that they are a poor lot, and Sumner will be quite as well, if not better, without them.—Yours, &c, SITMNER RATEPAYER. TO THE EDITOR OF THK PRF.SB. Sir, —After reading your article on "Camp Life at Sumner," and the proposed by-laws, I may state that this matter has been considered by a goodly number of the campers, and .they fully fall in with your views with reference to a nominal fee of, say, ls per week, or 53 per month, being charged. Moreover, no objection is made respecting by-laws regulating and supervising the c.%mps, but the point of strife with the Borough Council is the exorbitant rate proposed to be levied. I would like to point out that Mr Crawford ia quite wrong with respect to the campers not using proper bathing dresses, and he is evidently under a misapprehension, as the regulation suits are used by all of them. It is mostly people who visit Sumner on holidays and picnic on the sections on which the camps are pitched that are in the habit of bathing a3 described by him. The Council already have a by-law with respect to this, and action can be taken against any individual who breaks it. Why then should the onus of any indiscreet persons be cast on the campers. . • Mr Crawford must think that the time has arrived for him to reap a golden harvest when a license fee of __ per week for erecting tents in his sacred borongh is considered to be a fair rate for supervision. Anyone of the campers will be only too -glad to accept the office of supervisor at this small remuneration, for according to Mr Crawford's own showing eighty tents at 5s per week amounts to £20 per week. A Camper.