TRADESMEN’S DEFENCE ASSOCIATION.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 183, 10 May 1872, Page 3

TRADESMEN’S DEFENCE ASSOCIATION.

A very numerously-attended meeting was held last evening, in the large room of the Young Men’s Christian Association, for the purpose of protesting against what was described as the oppressive conduct of th police authorities, in carrying out certain of the City Council by-laws. Mr Cosgrave was called to the chair. He said that the sixth by-law was the one particularly objected to. But these by-laws were never intended for a small colonial city. They were copied from regulations for much larger places.—Mr Montague was the ne t speaker. He said it was not merely the by-laws themselves that the shopkeepers complained of, but the manner in which the observance of them was enforced by the police. He moved, “ That this meeting is of opinion that clause No. 19 of by-law 6, viz., ‘ Exposing any article whatsoever on any public thoroughfare or street,’ is obnoxious and arbitrary, injurious to the shopkeepers at large, and propose that a petition be signed by the ratepayers of Auckland, requesting their representatives in the Council to amend the said by-law.”—Mr Offer seconded the resolution. He described the conduct of the police as tyrannical. He did not think there was any city in the southern hemisphere so badly governed as Auckland. The shopkeepers were heavity taxed, and ought not to be intimidated in the conduct of their business Mr J. L, Smith moved the second resolution, which was in the following terms : “ That this meeting, viewing with dismay the present despotic action of the police, resolve to form an Association for their general defenc', to be termed ‘ The Tradesmen's United Defence Association,’ to consist of a chairman, commit ce, and treasurer, to be appointed by the present meeting.” He complained that the manner in which the police behaved was most offensive. They threatened the sbopkeepeis in the presence of their customers, domineered in the most unseemly way, and caused the greatest irritation to shopkeeper and customer at the same time.— Mr Shaldeis seconded the resolution. He trusted the object of the meeting was to adopt united action against what must be called despotic action by the police. He would not support any resolution that would intmfere with the good order and government of the city. Threats in abundance had been given to the shopkeepers on all sides, and the .shop keepers, he maintained, were as respectable as any class of men in Auckland.— Mr T. H. Smith said, although bis premises and good* were much within the limits of his own lease, be was constantly threatened by the police.—Mr Cole said he had been also threatened scores of times. He thought when the representatives of a town became a municipal corporation they should have the control of the police in the city. As at present carried out, the by-law was oppressive and arbitrary, and from the position which the police occupied there was no getting ‘‘at the bottom of it.”—The l'‘solution was carried unanimously.—Mr Cass said he heard veiy little argument from the speakers. The police had spoken to him in terms sufficiently polite as to induce him at once to remove what was objected to. He thought the meeting was obstructive of tiie good order of the city. Tradesmen were subjected to these visits from the police in Melbourne, and in nearly every colonial c'ty.”—Dr Lee, with leave of the meeting, moved, “ That it is the opinion of this meeting that any by-laws passed by the City Council infringing the privileges and customs of trade are arbitrary in inception, and tyrannical in operation. Nevertheless, as the great body of ratepayers have hitherto neglected their duty by not exercising their right of selection in the election of the Council, if any by-law be passed abridging their privileges, ‘ serve them right.’” (Laughter ami cheers.) —Mr Kirby seconded the lesolution.—[His resolution opened up a wholly independent discussion, eliciting a good deal of animation, —cries of “Nonsense,” which provoked from Dr Lee a vindication of the language used, and illustrations of his experience as a ratepayer and elector. —Mr Shalders vindicated the opinion of the dissentients, and said the resolution was “ sheer nonsense, ami nothing else.”—Mr Staines was received with rounds of applause, and spoke at great length upon the resolution, and the “ honest representatives of the people.”]—The resolution was put, and the Chail man declared it to be carried. —Mr Cosgrave was elected Chairman of the Association. Upon the motion “That Messrs Atkin, Coombes, Dickey, Loverock, Offer, Montague, Cole, and Smith be a committee,” Mr Cass moved an amendment, “That the election of the committee be adjourned for six months,” which was received with a storm of hisses, and failed to find any one to second it.—The original resolution was carried.—This concluded the business, and the meeting separated.—Herald.