DUNEDIN’S LODGING-HOUSES

Evening Star, Issue 10899, 6 April 1899, Page 1

DUNEDIN’S LODGING-HOUSES

A GRAVE CHARGE BY A CITY COUNCILLOR. k RESTRICTIVE BY-LAW. Before the ordinary meeting «f the City ' Council last night a special meeting was . held, whereat I The Mayor moved that the draft of the I by-law before the Council, called the I Licensed Lodging-house By-law, be adop--1 ted, and that the by-law come into force : on June 1.1899. Cr Haynes seconded. Cr Carroll took exception to clauses t 6 and 17, providing that no licensee shall receive more lodgers than his license covers unless he obtains a special permit. There might be times when it would be necessary in the interests of the travelling public tbat there should be some little concession. Cr Solomon was inclined to go a step farther. He could not see any necessity for *the by-law at all, and could not conceive Why it had been brought op. He had moved a resolution asking that the attention of the Licensing Committee be drawn to the need of providing proper means of escape from hotels in time of fire. It was then suggested, he thought by Cr Haynes, that it would be wise to make the same provision for lodging-houses as well, and that was referred to the General Committee. Why this by-law was brought up he could not understand. He had never heard that any body had asked for it. The only thing necessary to be done, so far as he saw, was that provision should be made for the escape of lodgers in case of fire. Some of the clauses of the by-law were simply ridiculous. Cr Haynes:• Which ones? Cr Solomon replied that he might instance the clauses stipulating for the washing of sheets and so forth. So far as he knew, the lodging-houses here were well conducted, and he intended to vote against the motion, i Cr Denniston asked how the by-law sprang into being. Did it emanate from the inner consciousness of the town clerk or some other official, or was it based on some other place’s by-law? Cr Havnes said that Or Carroll had neglected to attend the infecting of the General Committee called to consider this matter, yet now he took exception to what was done. It was unfair. As to Cr Dsnniston’s question, it was answered by the fact that the cities of Christchurch and Auckland had passed by-laws on this subject, and they had clauses 16 and 17 in a more stringent form than was proposed here. Cr Denniston would not go the length of saying that the by-law was not needed. What he complainel of was that there was too much of the grandmotherly legislation about it. The by-law would be made much more simnle if a number of the clauses were excised, and he would move as an amendment that clauses 18 to 24 should be cut out. If that were done the by-law might be of some use to the community. [The sections referred to dealt with the separation of the sexes, the keeping of rooms and yards clean, the washing of bedclothes, and the airing of rooms.! Cr Park seconded the amendment. He thought the by-law necessary to a certain extent, and would have liked to see it made to apply not only to lodging-houses, bnt also to hotels. In his business he bad had the selling of numbers of lodging-houses, and manv that had thus passed through bis hands were in such a disgraceful state that he felt it was really necessary to have some such by-law. Twenty-five per cent, of those that he had sold, from ten-roomed to twenty-flve-roomed places, were in a most filthy state. He had spoken to one or two boarding-house keepers, and they seemed rather pleased than otherwise at the prospect of the by-law, though taking exception to one or two of the clauses. ’ Cr Christopher did not quite understand Cr Park’s position in seconding the amendment and then speaking for the by-law, but he was glad to have Cr Park’s testimony as to the need for the proposal of the Committee. It was, he (Or Christopher) thought, a mistake on Cr Denniston’e part to try to get rid of clause 18 (“Persons of different sexes other than married couples shall not occupy the same sleeping apartment”). This was a very important and necessary clause. Some of these places were mere houses of assignation.—(Voices: “ No.”) Well, he could prove it; and he thought it necessary that a public body should have some control over these places. Some of the other clauses Cr Denniston had wished to exclude from the by-law were very important. He thought it necessary for the health of the citizens that the things in a boarding-house should be kept clean. They knew that at some of these houses they seldom washed the clothes. —(Cries of “No, no.”) He had been in some of these places, and had seen the blankets almost alive. If the Council did not pass the by-law it would be passed in a short time. . Cr Chisholm was glad that Cr Denniston had moved hi»v amendment. There were substantial reasons why the clauses objected to should be excised. For one thing there would be great difficulty in administering some of these clauses. We were getting killed with legislation in this colony, and it the Council passed this by-law they would make themselves a laughing-stock. It was no argument to say that Dimedm should pass this by-law because it had been passed in other places. Its provisions could not be f carried out. Take clause 18 as an example. How would Inspector Donaldson or Inspector Barron or anyone /tise find out whether two persons who were occupying a room were married or not? Was it to be supposed that every person who wanted accommodation was to carry hwmarriage certificate in his pocket? He (Cr Chisholm) for one would not like to enter a room and ask such a question. He regarded the proposal as an unwarrantable interference with a business that was for the most part well conducted. And why limit the by-law to lodging-houses? Why not apply it to other houses* Was it to be supposed that all the immorality they had heard of was confined to lodging-houses? Look, too, at the absurd proposal that no sheet should be supplied to any lodger which had been used for more than seven nights without bring washed. How did the Committee come to fix on seven as the number of times a sheet could be used without being washed? How many eoundllors were there who had their sheete washed every seventh day? Cr Gore said the speeches he had heard in favor of the by-law convinced him that it was not required. The present Government were accused of interfering with the liberty of the subject; but they had never passed an Act so grandmotherly as the proposed by-law. He could not think that the by-law was required at all. He thought the beardinghouses were conducted in an excellent manner, and all that was wanted was some provision for escape in case of fire. Cr Haynes was sorry that the Council took the view of the matter that they had. It did not follow that because they passed the bylaw that they would carry it out to the letter. Cr Solomon; Why pas# it then? Cr Haynes proceeded to say that they . should pass the by-law so that they might a out its provisions if necessary. The and and Christchurch by-laws were infinitely mote sweeping. The Mayor said the General Committee had given the matter very careful consideration, and although it might not be necessary have all the clauses in tbe by-law that were in it at present, yet there was great necessity lor a by-law dealing .with common , lodging-houses. The Committee were guided by the advice of the Council’s solicitors in ■ framing tbe by-law; and it would still be a

very useful by-finr g the rianses proposed te bp drieted’ltore restored tfm it Eight ooUhcfllbra VoM* % Ae aaemdneat, vtefc Ae **o? tooTed that danse 2, defitog *e Btetofcguf 0 cpßunon hdMfIwaie M expression kitoowinwy accepts** applied* and where four or more persons were provided with lodgings, fie altered by the delation of the word “lour,” and the substitotion of the word “ sit” This was also earned. The motion for the adoption of the bylaw, as amended, was then put and carried by 6 votes to 5, the voting bring as follows ; —For the motion: Crs Part, Howlison, Denniston, Chisholm, Carroll, and the Mayor; against: Crs Gore, Miller, Dawson, Solomon, and Haynes. Cr Solomon said that there had been an error in taking the division. It was impossible that the result should be as announced. The Mayor: Some didn’t vote. Cr Christopher: I didn’t. Cr Haynes claimed that every councillor ought to vote, and he wanted the morion pat again. The Mayor: I have given my ruling, and will not put it again. Cr Solomon: It is mere waste paper. Better put it in the fire. The Mayor then moved that a special meeting of the Council be held on May 17 to confirm the by-law. Cr Solomon thought the best riling to be done was to settle the affair by negativing this motion.

For the motion there voted Crs Pork, Carroll, Howlison, Denniston, Chisholm, and the Mayor against it, Css Christopher, Haynes, Miller,- Dawson, Gore, and Solomon —six against six—and the Mayor gave his casting vote for the motion.