£l000 GIVEN FOR EXHIBITION

Southland Times, Issue 23610, 10 September 1938, Page 6

£l000 GIVEN FOR EXHIBITION

Southland County’s Contribution

AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER TWO YEARS

A sum of £lOOO, to be spread over a period of two years, was voted to the centennial exhibition by the Southland County Council yesterday. The decision was not a unanimous one, three councillors expressing themselves strongly against making such a levy on the ratepayers when the council was unable to meet the demands for improved roads. The discussion arose from a motion by Cr J. Dennis, notice of which had been given at the previous meeting, that the resolution passed on May 25 be rescinded. The resolution read as follows: “It was resolved on the motion of Cr Dennis, seconded by Cr Wraytt, to recommend the Southland Exhibition Committee to call a meeting of representatives of local bodies to discuss the matter of uniform donations by the local bodies, and that the representatives of the Southland County Council be empowered to commit the council for a sum not exceeding £lOOO, conditional upon the other local bodies in Southland providing their quota; the donation by this council to be paid over a period of two years.” Cr Dennis said that his reason for moving for the rescission was that there appeared to be some doubt whether the council was committed by _ the motion as it stood. In moving it in the first place he had tried to arrive at some finality, and in that the motion had served a good purpose. Most of the local bodies had come into line. If the present motion was carried he assumed that the matter would be open for discussion again. Cr J. McNeill: If that motion is carried does that mean that we have definitely decided to give £1000? Cr T. Golden contended that the rescission of the motion meant that they were committed. Cr .Dennis: No it does not. We will have nothing on the minutes. Cr Golden: Then you are cancelling the conditions of the original motion. The chairman (Cr G. W. Whittingham) disagreed with Cr Golden who accepted his ruling. Cr Golden remarked that when the original motion was carried the issue was clouded, but it had cleared since. It was a somewhat guarded motion: The motion was carried unanimously. COUNTY’S FINANCES Cr, Golden said that the majority of councillors were willing to give £lOOO if the other local bodies fell into line, but the Wallace County Council had rejected the proposal and he thought it was to be commended. The council’s financial position was no better than that of Wallace. The Southland county had an overdraft for nine or 10 months in the year and if it contributed it would have to borrow money. The sum of £lOOO did not represent much to the ratepayers—no more than 2/8 a head—but on the other hand the council , had rejected requests for roads that . would not have cost more than 4d a head. Road work was subsidized and if the' council gave away £lOOO it was the same as giving £3OOO worth of road-making away. He did not believe in the council making a compulsory levy on the rater payers, and he did not know of a county council in New Zealand that had given one penny to the support of a provincial court at the exhibition. He moved that no action be taken.

Cr McNeill agreed with Cr Golden, saying that he did not see how the council could vote £lOOO for the exhibition when it could not do the work that was required. That sum meant between £ 20(H) and £3OOO in subsidized work and he maintained that it was not the council’s job to subscribe. He did not see how the ratepayers would benefit to the extent of a single farthing. The council had gone to the limit with its rating and he did not think it was the council’s job to vote £lOOO. In moving an amendment '‘hat the sum of £lOOO be voted to the exhibition and that it be spread over a period of two years Cr A. S. McNaught said 'the money represented 8d a head of the population or 2/8 for the ratepayers. He asked the council to take a reasonable view. It vjas no injustice to the county to support such a worthy object. The amendment was seconded by Cr G. Wraytt- who claimed that the sum was very small and that the council should contribute. “It would be better if Southland was not represented at all than that it should not be represented in a proper manner,” said Cr Dennis, who supported the amendment. .

Crs'W. M. Norman and L. A. Niederer supported the amendment, and Cr F. F. Trapski opposed it, saying that it was wrong to spend the ratepayers’ money in such a way. “The Southland County Council is here to look after roads, and not exhibitions,” Cr Trapski said. The chairman, expressed regret that councillors were not unanimous. They ■knew Southland was a wealthy county and if it failed to make a donation it might upset the whole of the arrangements made by the committee. He thought it would be a great pity if the Southland county were held up to the rest of New Zealand because it failed to contribute.

The amendment was carried, the voting being as follows:— FOR: Crs Norman, McNaught, Dennis, Wraytt and Niederer. AGAINST: Crs Golden, Trapski and McNeill. The amendment then became the motion and was carried.

Cr Golden gave notice of motion that the £lOOO voted to the exhibition be confined to those ridings that supported the resolution.