Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7649, 28 May 1886, Page 4

Considerable feeling was apparently elicited in the City Council yesterday in relation to the wall of the Church of England Cemetery in Symonds-street. Tt is to be regretted when anything of the nature of sectarian feeling manifests itself in discussions among those representing the general community, and it is to be hoped that such a matter as this may be permitted to rest on its own merits. It was advanced as a reason against the concession that the Church of England had plenty of funds, and the inference seemed to be that that body could build its own wall. This, to say the least, is a a convenient if somewhat rough and ready way of disposing of a question of right, and though it was not exactly the ground on which an adverse decision was ostensibly arrived at, there is little doubt that th" fact of the existence of accumulated funds in the hands of the Church of England authorities, in connection with the administration of their cemetery, had a good deal to do in determining the decision to let that body build the wall for itself. Indeed, the rumour has been current, whether correct or otherwise we are not iu a position to say, that the supposed existence of these funds, and the possibility of the' City Council getting possession of them, Vad a good deal to do with the difficulties thrown in the way of the united ministers of religion obtaining their due share of control of the Waikomiti Cemetery, and it has been pretty freely stated that if tho trustees of the Anglican Cemetery had handed over their money to the City Council all difficulties would have disappeared at an earlier period. Be that as it may, the City Council, or some at least of the councillors, appear to have fixed their eyes on these funds, and to have determined that the screw shall be put on the trustees of the cometery to extort as much as is possible.

But this question of the claim of the Anglican Church should be considered by itself, Should that body be compelled to erect the wall abutting on the roadway, or should it not 1 It seems to us that the history of affairs right across the roadway should indicate the fair solution of the difficulty. In the case of the Catholic cemetery, the foundation as well as the wall was at the charges of the Provincial Government, the legitimate ! successors of which in matters municipal is admittedly the City Council. If the foundations and wall on the one side of the roadway were the gift of the public, so should they be on the other ; and the fact that the claimant is rich, and could do all this itself, is no reason why it should be compelled to disburse in connection with a public work which, so far as precedent guides, should be defrayed by the public. It is true that in the case of the Presbyterian Cemetery the foundations were put in by the Presbyterians and the original wall erected ; but the superstructure was built by the Council to meet the requirements of the public, and a similar superstructure was formed on the basis of the original wall built for the Roman Catholics by the Provincial Government. Still the public improvements of the Council have imported an element of inconvenience and cost to the management by the trustees, and for that fact the trust of the Anglican Cemetery should not be held responsible or called on to make good the cost. Had these improvements not been made the trustees would not have been under the necessity of incurring any expenditure ; and it seems to us that the City Council will be doing rather an unhandsome thing if it rigidly adheres to the pound of flesh.