Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


A NOVEL POSITION. IS PARNELL TUNNEL DUPLICATION NECESSARY ? TO BE DECIDED BY CITIZENS. [BX JELEGEAPH — SPECIAL TO THE POSI.J AUCKLAND, This Day. The appointment of ten representative men by the Mayor of Auckland to confer with the Minister for Railways to decide whether the duplication of the Parnell railway tunnel is necessary, has been completed, and the Mayor has advised ■the Prime Minister and Minister of Railways of their appointment. How it happens that this /committee or commission lias been set up may not be quite clear to even interested people. It was in the year 1985 that the duplication of the Auckland-Penrose section of railway was first proposed by the Government. Rightly or wrongly many of the business people of Auckland were of opinion that the original proposals for doubling the line included the duplication of the Parnell tunnel, and when the Government declared definitely that it had not and never had had any intention, to double the tunnel, there was considerable in^ dignation among the citizens, who maintained that the Government was retracting a part of what it had virtually promised. In October of that year Sit Joseph Ward, who at that time was Minister for Railways, came to Auckland and was met by a deputation of some 200 interested citizens. After the speakers of the deputation had laid their side of the question before kirn the Minister gave his explanation. Briefly, it amounted, to a statement that the duplication of the tunnel had never been promised, that it had never been thought of because it was not ncessary, and that there was not sufficient money available to do the work. He made a suggestion that first- of all the scheme, as outlined in the Government proposals, should be completed, and that if afterwards the members of the deputation would meet him again and show that the duplication of the tunnel was found to be nectssary, he would authorise it. j At the conclusion of his conference with the deputation Sir Joseph adopted a unusual course by moving the following resolution:— "That in the opinion of this meeting tie programme we are carrying out ot duplicating the line without duplicating the tunnel should be completed, and on that being completed the Mayor of Auckland select ten representative men to go over the line, and if they declare the duplication of the tunnel is necessary the Minister for Railways is to be bound to duplicate it." This proposal was received with applause and carried. , The people of Auckland have awaited j not only the completion of the Penrose duplication, but the completion of the I Main Trunk line. The men have • now ! been selected, but how they will v set I about their work has not yet been definitely arranged. Probably they will sit as a\commission and hear such expert evidence as the Minister for Railways may bring before them. COST OF A UNIVERSITY COLLEGE. [BI XELEenAFH — SFECIAL TO THB POST.] AUCKLAND, This/Day. On being asked what he thought -»of the contention that £100,000 was too, much to spend on any university in New ' Zealand, the Hon. George Fowlds stated I that a greater sum than that had been spent in the building and equipment of the university .colleges at both Canterbury and Otago. If the people of Auckland, however, thought the spending of such a sum in the cjty unwarranted, the Government would probably be > a reduction in the proposed expendi- | ture. Mr. Fowlds said the whole question would come before Parliament next' session, when proposals would probably be placed before members for consideration in concrete form. [tHESS ASSOCIATION.] LABOUR AND POLITICS. DUNEDIN, sth Miy. At a meeting of the Otago Trades Council to-night a long discussion took place on the position in which the recently-f orme<l South Canterbury Trades and Labour Council finds itself in connection, with thef registration of its 1 rules. Among the rules is the following provision: — "If necessary, to take action to secure the' direct representation of Labour in Parliament and on local government bodies." This rule has been referred to the Crown law officers, and it is understood that the t'esulfc is that the council cannot be registered under the Arbitration Act. unless it agrees to delete this rule. The Otago Trade^ Council to-night forwarded' the following telegram to the Prime Minister at Winton : — "In view of the Solicitor-General's decision that no Labour union can register its rules under the Arbitration Act if such rules contain any reference to political action, the Otago Trades Council asks the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation in the coming session i,o remove this unfair and unjust restriction to Labour bodies." JUDGMENT IN A HARBOUR -BOARD APPEAL. NELSON, sth May. Mr. Justice Cooper delivered judgment to-day in the case of the Molueka Harbour Board v. Rankin, of importance to harbour boards. The case was an appeal from the decision of the stipendiary magistrate giving judgment for che respondent for the value of a ton of sugar short delivered by the appellant board, and lost from the wharf under the board's control. The magistrate held that notice of action was not necessary under Section 219 of the Harbours. Act., as the board's right to act as wharfingers was derived from its byJaws, and not statute, and that an implied contract .was entered into between respondent and appellant, by which the board became not wharfingers, but bailees, of the sugar, and liable upon contract to account for it, the matter being one of contract. His Honour upheld the magistrate's contention that Section 219 did not apply to breaches of contract, but reversed the magistrate's decision that there had been a contract entered into between, the board as wharfingers and the shippers. His Honour held that the failure to deliver goods was a breach of a duly imposed by statute, and that the section applied, and that notice of action was necessary. The appeal was. therefore, allowed with costs. HOUSE DESTROYED. NELSON, sth May. A house at Belgrove, owned and oc-< cupied by Mr. Nisbett, with its contents, was totally destroyed by fire last night. ________ m _^_^___ k

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

TELEGRAMS., Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 106, 6 May 1910

Word Count

TELEGRAMS. Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 106, 6 May 1910