The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

as made t

aquiry, we have racntained
,m the verdict was returned
Wednesday, is not the Rev.

Samuel Fenton, of Wavertr

cot

7Litnrpoo

' zntbalb.

TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 7, 1846.

In calling attention to the misapprehension of the
respective duties of two such important bodies as
the Council and the Dock Committee, who have
under their immediate management two vast estates
with distinct and separate interests, we would not
be understood to take upon ourselves to decide
which, in a legal sense, is in the right or which is in
the wrong ; but we venture to give a passing opi-
nion on what appears before us, arising out of the

recent debate in the Town Council.
Whatever may he the real amount of power trans-
ferred to the Dock Committee by the alteration of
the dock constitution made by the act 6 Geo. IV., it
isagreed by the legal authorities of both bodies that
the Dock Committee is not a committee of the
council, inasmuch as eight of its members are
elected by the dock rate-payers, over whore► the
Council cannot exercise the smallest control, either

by rejection or an

other means

is also admitted by both these respected au-
thorities that nothing whatever can be originated in
the Town Council relating to the management of the
docks under the existing acts; and that the only
controlling power of the council consists in the exer-
cise of a veto, to annul or confirm the Dock pro-
ceedings; that a hare majority i.; not sufficient for
one or the other ; and that two-thirds alone of the
trustees present can give effect to this power.
Thus far both parties appear to be perfectly in
accord. The difference of opinion arises as to who
has the power to originate new matter beyond the
existing act of parliament ? 'Who is then to take the
initiative ? The Dock Committee claim this power,
subject, as in all their proceedings, to the approba-
tion of the trustees in council assembled. This
claim, as far as we know, has always been conceded
to the Dock Committee, whether as a matter of
convenience or not is not for us to say. We con-
tent ourselves with recording the fact and expressing
our opinion of the reasonableness of such a course ;
for who so likely to know, and judge so correctly of,
the requirements, 'wants, wishes and demands of
the port, as those who have the absolute control and
management of the estate, with the reservation of
the veto ? Who can be so well qualified ?
. On the part of the trustees it is contended that
the sole power belongs to them of originating new
matter beyond the existing acts of parliament; that
they alone can take the initiative to obtain a new
act of parliament for dock extension, or any other
purpose; and that a bare majority is sufficient for
the exercise of this power. This may be so, but it
certainly appears to us to he an anomaly that two-
thirds should be necessary in the cne case, and a
bare majority sufficient in the other. It appears,
moreover, to be a contention on the part of the
trustees, for..a shadow,—for we have yet to learn of
their ever having originated any alteration in the
deck acts—any new schemes of dock extension—or
proposed any new plans,—all, that we are aware of,
since the alteration of the dock constitution in the
year 1825, having had their origin with, and ema-
nated from, the Dock Committee.
To illustrate the point at issue, by a case anala-
gous to that of the trustees of the Liverpool docks,
we may cite the case of the trustees of the Duke of
Bridgewater. The trustees do not originate new
docks or basins, canas or railways : these originate
in charge of the Bridgewater estate;
the trustees approve or disapprove of any pro-
sed changes ; and so it is, we believe, in all public
ampanies where there are trustees, instances of
which surround us in this town.