Page:History of Adelaide and vicinity.djvu/144

 Il8 ADELAIDE AND VICINITY The Legislators The crisis in local affairs caused by the Victorian goldfields was partly answerable for this Act being so long held in abeyance. The depression in the city being so keen, property fell in value, and there was a startling diminution in the rates. The revival in 1852 altered the position, and Sir Henry Young proclaimed the Corporation on June i. Thus, after the lapse of nine years, residents returned to citizenship, and they took full advantage of their oi)portunities. Although not with equal effusiveness and expectation as on the former occasion, they entered upon their duties with greater deliberation. Adelaide was no longer a mushroom city, with its forced growth of lavish expenditure : it had attained the dignity and soundness which is only brought b)' years of experience and trial and accumulation of wealth. At the elections the citizens returned to compose the City Council were :^ Aldermen — Peter Sherwin, Judah Moss Solomon, William Paxton, and Peter Cumming ; Councillors — Daniel Eisher, E. B. VV. Glanfield, E. H. Eaulding, R. A. Eiveash, C. G. E. Platts, J. H. Eisher, S. Stocks, H. C. Beevor, E. Lawson, F. Haire, Isaac Breaker, and J. Slatter. On June 9, Mr. J. H. Eisher, the pioneer occupant of the chair under the former Corporation, was elected Mayor; Mr. E. S. Webber was appointed Acting Town Clerk, but was superseded by Mr. W. T. Sabben on July 15 ; and Mr. G. Tinline received the appointment of City Treasurer. Arrangements were made for premises, and Town Acre 203 (see Chapter V.) was again taken over, but no money was expended during the year. In pursuance of the Act, fresh elections were held on December i, when Mr. J. H. F"isher, was re-elected Mayor. There were certain defects in the Municipal Act which Councillors desired to have removed, and they appointed a committee to undertake the revision. Some difficulty was experienced in securing the support of the Legislative Council to these, and hence the relationship between the two bodies became strained. A clause in the Act limiting the expenditure on municipal salaries to 10 per cent, of the receipts gave especial umbrage. In 1852 an Act was passed declaring that the limit to such expenditure must be ^2,000 a year, an advantage which, however, gave little more satisfaction than the previous arrangement. The question continued to excite attention until 1854, when the section referring thereto was repealed. Other questions were raised, such as the advisability of obtaining an efficient water supply, a proper system of sewerage, an Act to regulate buildings in the city, and an Act to regulate fines imposed on persons refusing to act after being elected to a municipal office. There was considerable discussion as to the system to be pursued in assessing the city. According to one record the assessment in 1852 amounted to ^136,800, in 1853 to ^112,100, and in 1854 to ^130,684. The rates, dues, fees, and grants from Government up to September, 1853, amounted to ^12,056 2s. gd., some began to look attractive. In December, 1853, Mr. J. H. Eisher was re-elected Mayor, but several changes took place in the personnel of the Council.
 * ^6,253 IIS. of which were laid out in improving the streets, and the thoroughfares now