THE COLONIST. NELSON, FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1864.

Colonist, Volume VII, Issue 669, 25 March 1864, Page 2

THE COLONIST. NELSON, FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1864.

GORSE HEDGES,

" Law-makers," it is said, " should not be law-breakers," and when we find any person or party who has chosen as a special and prominent vocation the work of accusing on all occasions existing officialism of neglect, carelessness, selfishness, and other public misdemeanours, we naturally expect to find these critics perfect ensamples of care, attention, and obedience to law, and unselfish regard to the public safety. Of the imminent danger to the city and its environs from the gorse hedges which are so plentiful in various streets of Nelson, there can be no question. On this latter point we quite concur in the remarks of our local contemporary that

"As regards the getting rid of gorse altogether within the town, individual convenience must give way to public welfare, and no person hag a right to surround his premises with any thing which may endanger the property of his neighbour."

This is sound public law, and it is pleasant to find that we can on this point frankly agree with a contemporary from whom on so many points of fact and principle we have the misfortune so frequently to be compelled to differ. The Provincial Council, when dealing with these dangerous hedges, in not providing for their complete extermination within the city boundary, committed-an oversight which it cannot too soon remedy.

"We referred last Tuesday to the thickets of gorse which are to be found in "Waimea-street, in front of both occupied and fallow land, and this street is by no means an exceptionBut Examiner-street is eversomuch worse. We again cordially concur with the subjoined statement made by the same authority:—

" The spread of gorse in tho streets is, however, the greatest evil, and should be met at once. It is of comparatively little use to trim hedges, if a whole thicket of gorse is suffered to flourish close at hand, shedding its seed, and spreading further and further everywhere."

This is perfectly true, and we shall confine our remarks to the hedge fire which occurred last Friday, in illustration of the foregoing statement. The fire occurred in a hedge on ground belonging to Mr. Charles Elliott. The hedge has for years been untrimmed and it has shed its seed further and further into Examiner-street, until that thoroughfare looks more like bush land than an ordinary road. Along the same piece of land fronting "Waimea-street, the gorse' hedge has filled the ditch, and is dangerous, and has beea m long \mtrimmsd aa its

fellow next the first named street. The act provides that all such hedges must be properly trimmed twice every year. Considering that Mr. Elliott was' himself a member of the Council, and present when that bill became law, it is curious to find that his hedges, which exhibited such a blaze the other day, are completely untrimmed, so far as regards the side next the streets, although a penalty of £5 is exigible for each half-yearly noglect of this precaution. "We would have the laws more stringently carried out against those who help to frame them than against any others, for if tliey are to be suffered to break the laws they manufacture they become the layers of heavy burdens on other men's i3houlders, but do not themselves touch them with their fingers. Patriots who talk much of public weal ought to be the first to show that they can and do act as well as talk in that behalf.

It is amusing to find in the article we have already quoted from, that while great regard is professed for " public safety," there should be a cavil as to the meaning of the words " properly trimmed." In the case in point, where no trimming has taken place for years, there can be no question that the act has not been complied with. " Proper trimming," we should suppose, according to ordinary English and the true intent and meaning of the act, means the reduction of the danger and the prevention of the spread of seed. A belief is expressed also that, as the law at present stands, the Board of Works is the party responsible for keeping the streets clear of gorse, and not the owners or occupiers of land. Had the act been examined with anything like legal precision this error would not have been made.

Reasoning from analogy and ordinary business, there seems no doubt of the party on whom the liability rests. The act provides that the owners of land, with gorse hedges adjoining streets shall trim their own hedges, not that the Board of Works shall do so. Clearly the very spirit of the act is to prevent street encroachment and check the growth of the plant.

If then,bynon-observance of the trimming law, occupiers of land permit the growth of the plant and cause obstruction of, or encroachment on, the streets or roads, then there is no avoiding the conclusion that the offending person is the party liable in the penalty and bound to remove the obstruction. This is evident, both from the act itself and also from the ordinary law against street encroachment. "We think any lawyer could have no difficulty in arriving at this conclusion. If the act itself is faulty in some respects, we believe the Board of "Works is not to blame in the matter. The Board, we learn, gave a draft of the Grorse Bill much more definite and effective in its provisioua i.iau the act itself. It was, however, managed in committee to curtail the proportions of the Bill; and thus were excised several points which would have prevented any possibility of cavil. One point, we think, is clear: there can be no doubt that parties obstrucingthe streets, by whatever means, are those who are bound to remove the obstruction, and who should be punished if they do not. We hear and read much talk respecting the providing of water to extinguish fires. As prevention is always better than cure, it it would be wise to remove or lessen these dangerous causes by which fire might run through many parts of the city. The first is difficult to obtain'; the other is a bounden duty peremptorily required by law.