TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 6, 1907. AN INTERESTING DILEMMA.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1907, Page 6

TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 6, 1907. AN INTERESTING DILEMMA.

Th.3 Fire Board for the administration of the Fire Brigades Act of last session must be constituted in each of the four chief centres in May next, and the interview with the Attorney-General which we published yesterday ehbwft that the important work of framing the necessary regulations is well under way. The board of seven members— one appointed by the Government, three by the insurance companies, and three by the local authority which is to administer tho Actis likely to effect an immense improvement upon the unsatinfactory methods hitherto prevailing. Superintendent Hugo's opinion on tho new Act, which we were ateo able to publish yesterday, i« highly favourable, and he points to the successful Operation of a similar measure in each of the Australian States as justifying his sanguin® view. But the immediate interest of the Aob is centred in its financial provision, which the Logiolature appears to hayo < made the subject of another of those ingenious conundrums so familiar to the puzzled etudsnti of our laws. As we explained yesterday, the Act provides for an annual "estimate of tho probable expenjliture necessary for tlw> administration oftHs Act within tho jurisdiction of tho bonrd," and to meet this annual expenditure the Government is to pay a sum equal to the rate that would hftvfc been payable undo* the Aot in neepeefc of all Government building* in the district if such buildings had oeeh ratable property f and the remainder is to be borne by the insuranco companies and the local authority in equal share*. So far an relates to the normal outlay required for the upkeep of the brigade, tli ere is nothing to suggest any doubt as to its being adequately cov-sred by the section ; but dotn the section aleo applyto tho liability of the board for the canitnl cost of the plant of the present fire brigades? and if not, wh^t does? Jtinb at this very point where the lay intelligence begins* to falter and to look for thj light of professional guidance, the lamp of the Attorney-General's learning fails iv. "Asked for his opinion on ,thii »oittt» ' a* wri reported in teiUrdo/* ( mtemfWj " Dr. Eiadl&y laid the question

involved consider* tioli of feme general cections of the Act which he was not at present prepared to discuss." If the Attorney-General refuses to enlighten w, wo must endeavour to gropfr our way through tho darkness alone, merely premising that tin* lcsponsibility is his if we wander from tha track. It ceitainly seems to us that the apportionment of the cost of the plant which tho board is to tako over fins not been provided for. Expicfcs provision there certainly is not, either in the sections lelatinc to the annual expenditure to which we have already referred, or in section 31, which deals with the purchase of the plant. This section provides that the plant is to be taken over nt a price to be agreed upon between tho board arid the locsl body, and failing such agreement to be fixed by arbitration, but payment of tlie price co determined may at the option of tho board be extended over any period not exceeding ton years. It was plausibly urged by Superintendent Hugo that the spreading of this payment over a number of years constituted each instalment an item 6f the " nnnual expenditure," for which the Government, the insurance ! companies, and th 6 local body will be liable in the proportions staled. But, though it id tempting to oeek any 6*cftpe from a. gross absurdity ( it is to be feared that the courts would not hold that a capitnl chargo had altered its nature merely because its payment had beell postponed. . . ' This also must bo borne in mind, that if this transformation could be effected by postponement, it will always be in the power of a majority of the board to effect or to prevent the transformation ; and as the representatives of the Govornment and the insuranco. companies include four out of the Beyen members, thoro will always be a majority of these' interested parties to vote themselves clear of liability. Such a position seems too absurd to be possiblo; but on the other hand thero is the i absurdity that if the value of the plant cannot bo debited to annual expenditure, thero is no provision for the apportionment of the' cost among the constituents of the board, and nothing thorefore for the board to pay with though its obligation to pay is clear. It is an interesting dilemma, fend what do the Government propose to do about it? What is wanted at once is an authoritative statement of the position, and the necessary legislation to make sense of it if Sense cannot be made of it as it stands. The proportionate liability of the Various contributorios should be made to apply all round as it was doubtless meant to do.