CO129-266 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [1-3] — Page 386

fixtures and fittings involved in the process of cleansing and disinfecting. They recognize the urgency of the case and the necessity for very prompt and decisive action. They do question the initial validity of the Bye-Laws of the 10th.May under which the Sanitary Board and its Committe acted but admit that, whatever doubts may have existed on that point, they bave been removed by the operation of Ordinance 5 of 1894.

The Committee would however call attentica here to the fact that when the Ordinance in question was before the Legislative Council, the Bye-Laws of the 10th. and 31st.of Way were carefully examined and fully considered, were amended in certain particulars and were given the full force of law with the unanimous consent of the whole Council and with the approbation of the entire community. The Committee claim that they have not in any way or at any time exceeted the authority conferred on them by these Bye-Laws and by that Ordinance.

The complaint against them is that after the premises in question had been cleaned and disinfected and declared so to be and to be in a sanitar condition and fit for occupation, and after the cessation of the plague, the Committee retained possession of these houses and tenements and refused to give them up to their ownersexcept upon conditions, as to the future occupation of the premises, which the Committee had no right to demand, which they have, as it is alleged, since practically-adaltted to be illegal-and-which it was utterly iaponsible for the owners^to^enforce^on

refexcept

their tenants,^or,~to comply-with-themselves.

In the first place the Committxe-have-to-redark-that-they have -never adaitted~and~do^oot now¬adait that their action~was in any respect illegal. Neither do they understand in what way they are supposed to`bavə "nade practical admission of the illegality of their:condast. If it is in

seeking

382

"seeking to have a protecting clause inserted in Ordinance 15 of 1894, that

is no admission. The Committee are advised and ballsver that in any action

cor-suit that night have been brought against then, apart from that Ordi-

+nance, they would have had a perfect defence on the merits on each and

every case, but they were and are of opinion that their services to the

Colony entitled them to be protected, individually and collectively, from

the worry, annoyance and expense of legal proceddings: which could have but

one result. If it is suggested that their willingness and readiness to deli

ver up possession on and after the 5th January without enforcing any con-

editions, is an admission that their conduct in holding, up to that date,

*was unjustifiatie, they have only to say that when the Ordinance 15 of 1894

tecase law, there was no longer any need for the Committee to insist upon a

^personal undertaking from each owner, "as be was bound down more stringently

by the provisions of that Ordinance than by any undertaking.

-In the second place, the Committee demur. to the statement of the

nenorial that the conditions: they sought to impose were unreasonable and

-impossible: If it was impossible for owners: to comply with or enforce them

they were unreasonabis.

*The first condition was, not to allow the ground floors-to-be

-used as a living room until the floor had been covered with some imperviou

material to a certain depth. There is nothing difficult or impossible in

that. The houses were empty. If the owner let any one into occupation of

them until the floors had been remade, it was his own fault. It was his

business as owner to get the floor remade, and the sooner be got it remade

the better for himself the sooner he could relet it.

720

The other conditions, (a) to allow no mezzanine floors not autho-

-rized by law; (b) to allow the greater noster of persons to occupy the baur

than in the proportions specified, (c) not to allow the basement to be used

-e