LOCAL BODIES' SINKING FUNDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 12

LOCAL BODIES' SINKING FUNDS.

MR SIDEY’S EXPLANATION. I At the meeting of the City Council last week a letter from Mr Sidey, M.P., was read, which throws some light on his attitude, and that of others, in respect to the 1 local bodies’ sinking funds and the wishes of the Dunedin City Council, j Mr Sidcy's letter stated that the amendment inserted at his instance in the j State Guaranteed Advances Bill with the view to giving effect to the wishes of the council was subsequently struck out by the Government. Since coming to Dunedin ! he found there was an impression in some quarters that he acquiesced in the delei t.ion of his amendment and apologised for the Government in striking it out. That I impression was quite erroneous. The committee that considered the council’s peti- ! tion having reported that they had no recommendation to make, Mr Sidey moved 1 that the petition bo referred to the Government for consideration. This araendj moot, though opposed by the Minister, was carried. He might have allowed matters |to rest’ there, but the State Guaranteed Advances 13131, dealing with local bodies loans, was brought down, and he took the opportunity of moving to insert an amendment on the lines of tire prayer of tb& petition. This was carried. On the bill being reported to the House the Government moved to recommit it, in order to delete Mr Skley’s amendment; and this was carried., On the bill being recommitted l , the motion to delete Ms amendment was lost. The Government brought down a Governor's Message to (inter alia) delete tho amendment. Mr Sidey moved that the Message bo disagreed with so far as it related to the amendment. This was lost. What was construed into a.n apology for the Government was a remark of Mr Sidey’s made after the last division had been taken, to the effect that ho recognised that tho Government was within its rights in the course it had adopted by Governor’s Message, but while saying: eo, he_ at the same time expressed regret that it had not accepted a decision of the House given before so much party feeling had been introduced into the question. To construe his remarks taken as a whole as an apology for the Government was. quite inaccurate. Further, instead of acquiescing in tho deletion of his amendment, he. let no opportunity pass of affirming it, and when the final vote was taken the House was divided by him at a stage m the proceedings when it was not expected a division would be taken. The Prime Minister was himself taken by surprise and had not made the explanation to the _ House which he had intended making oefore submitting the question for reconsideration. The letter further stated that although the writer had all along declined to regard the question as a party one. there was no doubt that it had very largely become such by the time the final vote was taken, and it was not then, possible to obtain, a vote on the sumect freed from party considerations Mr Sidey desired to say that he should at any tune be pleased to confer with Ms Worship the Mayor regarding wha.fc further steps (if any) might be taken by the council in this matter. 'The letter was received. Cr. Cole moved that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr Sidey for all the. trouble ho had taken in this matter. Cr Douglas seconded the motion, and said that, Mr Sidey had fought, tooth and nad to protect and further the interests o.t Uunerhn. Tho motion was carried.