CAVERSHAM GASWORKS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13963, 24 July 1907, Page 2

CAVERSHAM GASWORKS

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE.

SECOND HEADING OF THE BILL CARRIED.

(From Oor Own Cohbespondent.)

WELLINGTON, July 23.

Tho seoorul reading of tho Dtmcdin Suburban Gas Company Empowering Bill wag takon in tho House to-day. . Mr Arnold, who has cha.vga of the bill, 'briefly, expfoinod tlio .'circumstances loading up to tho necessity for the present proposal. He said it was not only .in the interests of the company, tat fifeo in the interests of the suburban boroughs, that the. company should bo permitted aJi extension of time. Bunodin waa not in a, position td supply some of the other boroughs with! gas. It was said that all gasworks should belong to municipalities, and ho himself was a 6rm believer in that principle, but at tho same time ho did not think tho eity of Dunedin should liavo tho , right to take over the oompany's works without paying fair compensation. The evidenco would show that the company had not only a moral, hut also a legal claim. It lisid tho highest advice to that cifoet, and if tlio bill did not pass it would only lead to litigation that w'ould cost the company as well as tho corporation u vory, largo swm indeed. In regard to the moral claim, tile original company had lost £55,000, and a majority of the shareholders in tho original company had an interest in the present company. Tho preeont company ilmd invested a sum of £37,000, and had' been supplying the boroughs mentioned for years, but it was not until 1894- that tho shareholders reooived their first, dividend, and it was only' at tho rate of 1 per cetfit.

In 1896 tho company paid another 1 per cent, dividend, in 1897 1-J ]>cr cont., and in 1898 lj ijSer cent. From 1899 till 1901 it paid 1? per oont.. but they had'paid no (since that date. Tt might Ixi eaid that it had a reserve fund, kit this fund only amounted to £5000. Ho pointed out that the city had already recognised that the company had a claim, tecaueo 6ome vears ago it. approached tho com p&ny with a view to buying.the whole of its works, tho correspondence on tho subject, <roing on rat.il July, ]906, when tho council brought the correspondence to an end. Tho company-itself, ho pointed out, did not desire a monopoly, and there was nothing to prevent tho eitv gomginto these boroughs with'a supply of electricity. MiArnold then explained tho principal clauses of tbo bill, and stated that even since tho preparation of tho bill the company wasprepared to meet the city 'by soiling to it the reticulation in Caversham Ward so long as it was given tho right to allow its mains to pass through the ward for the supply of St. Kildi, Mornington, and Roslyn. '

Tlio Hon. J. A. Millar said that the city ww desirous of exempting Oaversham (noiv a wart of the oity) from tho opera-, tions of the hill, and he, on behalf of the city, objected to the granting of power to. a private company to supply gas to a portion of the oily when the oity was prepared to do so itself. With- regard to tlio hill boroughs, ho did not., object, to t.ho company having power to supply them. If, however, any aAtompt. were mado to inchide Ctiversliam, then lie ■ would feel it hie. duty to oppose tho bill at overv stage. Mr _ Barclay opposed tho bill. Be said the city was going to an expenditure of £50.000 in improving its j?bswotlc3, and it would not Ijo right to give to a private company the right to break up tho streets i.i the city itself. Ho maintained that there was no need for the bill at that juncture. The company's concessions had .vet two years to run, and they knew that tho city would not be able to go in for liuhtmg by electricity before those ' concessions expired. The company wanted to bccuto that monopoly before he oity could get its electricity in. As to the moral claims, it would 1m time enough to consider those when the time for winding up the company arrived; He would not say that tho company should not then, be dealt with in a fair ond reasonable manner. The city could then purchase from the company everything that would bo of value to it,,, giving a liberal prico for tho same. It. seemed, however, that this was a caee of tho Midland Railway over again. An endeavour was being made to induce the House, in order to. square off a bad bargain,- to do something that wos wrong. The 1 company was ■ making a bold and ingoriioiß attempt to extricate itself .'from «. bad'bargain. ■ . The Prime Minister said that .in his opinion the bill should go to a committee. I He road an extract from a. letler written

to him from the company's office in London, urging live claims of tho shareholders to fair consideration in view of all the circumstanccs. The company had lost, £55,000, and had raised another £30.000 capital. Therefore, in view of the fact that there was £80,009 of British money invested in the venture, he was of opinion that there should be an investigation before a committee. It. was only right that the company should have reasonable treatment, and that it should get. fair value for any portion of .its plant taken over by the city. He would support the second reading of the bill. Mr James Alien said lliero was no doubt that these people should get all their rights, but at the same time the city must bo protected. The proper course would bo lo let. the bill go to a committee. If the city took over the lighting it should meet the company with regard to its mains. Mr Sidey, whose remarks could not be very distinctly heard in t.'nc press gallery, was understood to say that there was a possibility that an arrangement might bo oome to by tho city talcing over from the company at all oveiits its system of reticulation. If ihb bill vere not passed ho did not beliovo tho City Council, which was amenable to publio opinion, would do any act of injustice towards the company. Unless there were verjr considerable modifictitious made in tho bill by the committee he would oppose it. If tho bill were put through, the company might get a higher

prico for its works than it would now. Mr Thos. Mackenzie said lie would support the bill. There was evidently a desire on the part of some of the speakers to place this company at a disadvautnge. Mr Sidey, for instance, had taken ui a most unfair position. The Leader of the House,

on the other hand, had taken the right attitude. Any suggestion that, over emanated from any one for the benefit of tho suburbs was. always strenuously opposed' by tile city members. It, should not be' forgotten that this company had done a very useful work in tho'pas.t;. and tHac t.lie suburbs also had their rights.'.. It-'was- because of this overstretching on the part of Dmiedin that many of the suburbs kid 'refrained, from throwing in their lot with the city. They felt that if they did so tlioy would .bo under the heel ~of the city. In regard to this bill, ho'understood'there was. considerable difficulty in findiug anyone to take charge of it until Mr Arnold took it up. Others were afraid, because of tho town voters.' • . 'Mr E. G. Allen ea.id he lmd no doubt that, if this bill went to a committee, the matter could be satisfactorily settled.

. Mr Arnold, in reply, said he recognised that any part of the community had a right 'to he represented in the House, *nd that, was his reason for taking chargo of tho Bill. The company only wanted a fair valuation for its property! He pointed out that the company had been encouraged to undertake these works by representations made to it by the. mayors of the troughs interested. The company must bo very innocent indeed if it took. Mr Harclay's advice, aud waited till its interest was nil before promoting the hill. The City.Council, ho added, had made two valuations of tho property—one of £25,000 and another of £27,000,—and .the .company had offered to sell to the city at 523,000. The second reading of the hill was carried without dissent, and it will now go beforo the Committee on Private Bills.