MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5689, 7 October 1896, Page 4

MEETING AT SYDENHAM.

THE FINANCES OF THE BOROUGH. A public meeting to discuss the finances ' of the borough, of Sydenhani was held iv the Mission Hall, Colombo Road, last . evening. There was a large attendance, J the hall being crowded. There was a considerable proportion of ladies among those present. Mr T. Brown, Mayor of the borough, presided, and stated the object of the meeting. He read a letter from Mr J. A. Caygill, stating that he' had been announced to address the meeting without his consent having been obtained. He (Mr Caygill) had reason to believe that the meeting was intended to discuss the borough's finances merely from the prohibition point of view, and it was his object to avoid dealing with any matter from a partisan standpoint. The Rev L. M. Isitt here took a seat on the platf orm, and was received with hearty cheering. Mr T. E. Taylor said that if he had been correctly informed Mr Forrester had said at a recent meeting in Sydenhain that the present position of the borough's finances was due to the action of the prohibitionists who had effected a reduction in the number of licensed houses in the borough. Mr Forrester rose and denied that he had made such a statement. What he had said was that, the position was partly dne to prohibition. Mr Taylor said that Mr Forrester's denial was important. He had been reported by the newspapers to have made the statement and had allowed it to go unchallenged. He should have put the public right at once. Mr Taylor referred to a letter that had appeared in one of "the newspapers, and said that a letter "from their opponents seldom appeared in the correspondence columns of the newspaper press unless it was anonymous. The loss of revenue to the Borough had commenced long before prohibition was thought of. In 1885 the rates had amountod"to .£2328, and in 1895 to .£2056, a decrease of .£272. -The valuation: of the Borough in 18S5 ainoiuited to .£742,294. and in 1896 to .£058,017, a decrease of .£84,277. In 1896 there was a decrease of .£162 19s 9d in the rents from reserves , compared with the amount received in 1884. The Government subsidy had decreased from .£432 2s 6d in 1886 to .£263 19s 6d in 1896. In 1891, the year the licenses were reduced by the Prohibition Committee, the amount received as license fees was .£376 10s, and in 1896 .£2BB 4s 7d, a decrease of .£B4 5s od. In 1893 only .£5 was received as licensing revenue, and although, several hotels were open all the year, the licensees' patriotism did not cause them to pay their license fees for the benefit of the Borough. They might blame prohibition for their troubles, but they had never had prohibition in Sydenham. He put the loss caused by the reduction of licenses during the four years at «£BOO at the outside. Mr Louisson had stated that if they attempted to enforce prohibition he would give them three years of litigation. He had carried out his promise. In 1885 they had raised a loan of .£25,000, and this was the starting point of their financial troubles. He did not object to the raising of that loan, and thought that it was the right thing to do. Councillors had done splendid work in the past in judiciously expending a revenue never sufficient for the wants of a newly formed district. A farthing special rate on the loan should have been levied all along. The real cause of the reduction in their revenue was the depression which had been felt all over New Zealand. The "boom" burst in 1885, and since then' values had been gradually coining back to their normal level. Would any sane man say that the value of the Ashburton reserve had been affected by the prohibition movement? The foundation of their financial difficulties was laid in 1885, not in 1891. Mr Forrester referred to a statement made by Mr Lanyon, and said that the latter had blamed the old Councillors for the present position. Mr Lanyon emphatically denied this. Mr Forrester proceeded to say that what he had stated a few evenings ago was that prohibition might have been a good thing, but that it was a bad thing financially for the borough of Sydenham. (Loud cries of " Nonsense.") Mr Taylor said that in 1889 their finances were in full bloom and the prohibition movement had not commenced to bud. In 1889 the Council knew that they were not paying their way. From 1885 to 1896 they had expended .£9184 Is 8d on extraordinary works. This was over and above the us\ial necessary expenditure on general works. They had a good deal to show for this expenditure. They had one of the finest recreation reserves in the ' colony. They also had the swimming j baths and the cemetery. He recognised the necessity for economy in the salaries • paid to the Council's officers, but when a Councillor had proposed a scheme for reorganisation, it had been defeated by the ' very men who now blamed the Prohibition ' Party for the Council's overdraft. For the next three or four years they ought to ' abstain from unnecessary public works. Mr Forrester snbmitted figures to the meeting to show how he arrived at the [ conclusion that prohibition was a bad thing for the Borough. Ho had never ■ stated that the whole of the overdraft was • due to prohibition. Mr Lafferty said that the Borough, overdraft was J24542 11s sd, and the Borough income exceeded the ordinary expenditure for the past six years by .£1229 10s lid. He put the total loss to the borough by the prohibition movement at .£1277. He referred to the scavengering contract, and said that the lowest tender should have been accepted. A very lively discussion- here ensued, during which Mr Taylor said he had endeavoured to get the lowest tender accepted. Mr Forrester said Mr Taylor's statement , was a direct lie. Mr Taylor appealed to the Chairman, ■ who said Mr Forrester was wrong. , Mr Taylor proceeded to reply, and the • Rev L. M. Isitt called attention to the fact j that while the reporters had taken notes of ( what the previous speakers had said they j had now ceased taking notes. Mr Taylor . concluded by moving — '• That this meet- ] ing of Sydenhain ratepayers, after hearing f a thorough discussion of the history of , the borough finances, emphatically ex- , presses its conviction that there is no truth j in the allegation made by ex-Councillor , Forrester and others to the effect that the •, present position of the borough finances is due to the prohibition movement, the loss > of license revenue forming a comparatively , small portion of the Council's present over- < draft ; and further, that as the expendi- J ture on the show grounds and cemetery ] alone runs into .£3OOO, it would be more just to attribute the Borough's financia position to those items of expenditxire ; t and further, that the loss of license reve- c nue might easily have been provided for by f a scheme for the re-arrangement of the A Council's staff submitted to the Council f by a special committee of the Council, g if such scheme had not been rejected by j the very men who are now attempting, c without regard to the facts of the case, to ] create the impression that the prohibition s movement has injured the borough." a Mr Lanyon seconded the motion, which a was carried by a very large majority. r Mr Taylor then moved—" That this \ meeting believes that the abolition of the s liquor traffic will prove of immense finan- j cial, social and physical benefit to the x community." ' £ The motion was carried with only a few f dissentients. a Mr Taylor then moved— "That this { meeting of ratepayers urges upon the f Council the necessity for the Council carry- „ ing out the scavengering wovk of the f borough directly, as such a course will j result in great saving to tho ratepayers." -, Mr Laiierty said that the Council had 1 already decided to adopt the course pro- i posed "in the motion, and Mr Taylor's T motion would make no difference. ; j • The motion was, however, put to the 1 meeting and carried by a large majority. There were calls for the Rev L. Mi Isitt, who said tbat as he was neither a rate- . payer nor an elector of the borough, of r Sydenham, he thought it would be better I

if he did not interfere with their meeting. He thanked them for their wish tfo hear him speak. ; On the motion of Mr Martin, seconded by Mr Rowe, a hearty vote of thanks was passed to Mr Taylor. A vote of thanks to the Chairman, proposed by Mr Taylor, closed the meeting.