DRAINAGE RATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4861, 28 November 1883, Page 4

DRAINAGE RATE.

4» A meeting of the Committee of the ratepayers who object to the aotion taken by the Drainage Board in the matter of striking a rate was held yesterday afternoon, in the Commeroial Hotel; present —Mr John Ollivier (in the ohair), Messrs Flesher, Hopkins, J. I. Fisher, J. Deans, Wright, Kruse, W. H. Wynn* Williams, Kerr, Hebden, Bamford and Gibbs. Messrs Hopwood and Wynn* Williams wero added to the Oommittee. Mr Deans explained that his absence from town had prevented his attending at the last meeting. Mr Flesher reported that he, Mr Ollivier and Mr Hebden, had waited on the Drainage Board for the purpose of aßoertaining if the Board had .complied with the Aot under whioh they had struok the rate. Ihey ascertained that the Act had not been complied with, but the Board urged that their aotion had been validated by the Governor in Council. The deputation had asked why in Ohriatohuroh and St Albans the annual value had beeu adopted, while in other diatricta the oapital value had been taken. To this the Board replied that Ohristchuroh and St Albans had adopted the annual value, and the other districts had not. The deputation left, with the understanding that the points would be laid before the Board, and an explanation would be given. Three daya afterwards the deputation received a letter requesting that their objections might be put ; in writing. To this the deputation replied that they were prepared to have a test oase taken. Ihey heard no more till the case of Mr E. 0. 3. Stevens was brought before the Supreme Court, with the result that 1 the rate was quashed. Unfortunately, it was now feared that all the points of contention bad not been taken, and it was regretted that Borne of the ratepayers who objected to the rate had not been made parties to the suit. On Tueßday last Mr Ollivier and others had waited upon the Board to ascertain under what Aot the new rate was to be struok. They replied that it was under Olause 12 of the Bating Aot, the time having gone by for striking it under Olause 11. Ihe Chairman aaid Mr Flesher had explained very fully what bad been done. Ihe Board found that they had Acted erroneously, and were now striking a new rate from Deo. 11 to Deo. 31, thus making the ratepayers liable for twelve months' rates. The proper oourse was to levy the rate under olause 11, whioh was reasonable, fair and consistent. They would have to apply to the Commissioner for a Property tax list' without any valuation attaohed to it. Ihe list would then have to be valued, and the valuation roll would have to be open for objeotion before the Besident Magistrate. If the ratepayers were dissatisfied with the deoision of the Besident Magistrate, they oould take their objeotions to the Supre-te Court. Ihat was fair. He understood, however, that the Board intended to take the Property tax valuation, and, if so, they would be out of Oourt. There would be deductions from the valuation. Mr Wynn- Williams : Not for taxation. Mr Ollivier considered a rate so made to be tyrannioal to the utmost. Ihe Act said the rate must be on the " rateable value." Mr Wynn- Williams : It meant the full amount without any allowanoe. Mr Ollivier thought it did not follow that, beoause the olauae wae bady worded, there should be no redress. Mr Wynn-Williams was afraid there was no getting from the clause, whioh was too clearly worded. Mr Ollivier pointed out that the ratepayers were deprived of all appeal, oxoept to the Board, who were inflioting an injustice on them. It was, therefore, a oruel and unjust rate, and the Board should have rated under olause 11, It appeared to him that the ratepayers would have no redress. It was an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, for no men that were not drunk would have passed suoh an Act. What was to be done ? He was disposed to fight the thing to the last, and did not believe it would oost a large sum of money to go to the Oourt for an order restraining the Board from departing from the Aot of 1875, nnder which tbey were constituted, and under which they had contracted their loan. He would like to see the ratepayers sanotion the expenditure of a sufficient sum of money to test the point, otherwise they must sit down and calmly allow tho Board to ride rough-shod over them. Mr Flesher understood that the Osmmittee had had power to teat the point, but after the caae of the Hon B. 0. J. Stevens, it waa considered desirable to oome back to the ratepayers. Ibe point was whether or not the Board waa right in striking tho rate under the Bating Aot, 1882, which deprived the ratepayers of any redress. The Act stiuck a most serious blow at the liberties of the people of New Zaaland. Ihe question now was whether there was suffioient to justify the Oommittee in getting a decision as to the validity of the Drainage Board. Till that was decided no further Btep oonld be taken. Mr Wynn-Williams gave an explanation of the course of legislation as to taxing capital value, the prinoiple of which had been initiated by municipalities with a view to reaching holders of large blooks of land in towns, who did not contribute a fair share to the rates. After some further disoussion, the meeting resolved to take legal advice, so bb to ascertain whether or not the rate oould bo successfully opposed; as also whether or not the Board could levy a larger rate this year to oover uncollected rateß of last year. The sub- Committee were requested to convene a meetiug for Saturday, Deo. 8, at 3 o'clock, of the ratepayers of the rural dis*

triots of the Ohristohuroh Drainage Distriot, to reoeive their report and the legal opinions they have been requested to obtain. Mr Hebden suggested that, in the event of the solicitor's opinion being that the rate was unassailable, steps should immediately be taken to ensure as far as possible the repeal or modification of the Bating Aot, so as to remove the injußtioe of the present arrange* ments. Ihe Oommittee took no aotion on this point. Xhe meeting then olosed.