The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1903. GREATER CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11487, 21 January 1903, Page 6

The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1903. GREATER CHRISTCHURCH.

The meeting at the Canterbury Hall last night, although not so large as we should have liked to see it, was, perhaps, as large as one could reasonably expect, considering the strong counter attractions elsewhere, and also the circumstance that probably nearly every fact and argument capable of being brought either for or against tlie proposal luts already been adduced. We thoroughly agree with his Worship the Mayor that it is not a question over winch there ought to be any interchange of epithets, or any display of lieated feeling, it is a matter partly of business, partly ot sentiment, which ought to be decided: by the exercise of cool, common-sense, assisted it may be by some slight impulse of municipal patriotism, conic little glow of brotherly foeling. The first point to be considered is as to whether there ie any conflict of interest between the «ity and suburbs which ought to stand in the way of their amalgamation. For ourselves, we honestly think that from VSm point of view everything points in the direction ot union. There is no geographical boundary separating one municipality from another. The recent progress of building Jbas co joined city and euburfts that even a resident, much less a stranger, can hardly tell where one municipality ends and another begins. There are no financial obstacles in the way. We conflict of accountants has not shaken tne main fact that on the basis of existing rates the suburbs would gain rather than lose by joining the city. As we have before stated, however, we do not attach, much importance to this aspect of the case. We decline to discuss it merely in terms of eixty-fourths of a penny, to use Councillor Maedonald's expression at the St. Albans meeting. Frankly speaking-, we think that the immediate relief which any one district would get by joining the city is not worth considering in weighing the pros and cans of the case. We thick it only fair to point out, moreover, that wWle with a Greater Christchurch we shall be able to undertake more important works than at present, these works will have to be paid for, and consequently the rates will probably be increased. If we want progress we must be prepared to pay for it. We certainly do think, however, that amalgamation would tend to bring about an increase of efficiency and greater economy of administration. If, instead of having to find four mayors and forty-eight councillors, as at present, we had to elect only one mayor and fifteen councillors, it ought to be much easier to keep up the standard , of quality of our representatives than it is at present. Four separate municipalities can hardly provide themselves individually with the expert engineering advice whioh would be at the disposal of United Christchurch. Even in the matter of road metal, as Councillor Seed pointed , out, it is probable that large economies could be effected, and nruclt wear and tear of the roads could be saved. The advantages of a good fire brigade service, which, at present are chiefly enjoyed by the city, would, tinder the Greater Christchurch scheme, be extended over the whole area. From a business point of view, .t would be of some advantage if Christchurch appeared in the reference books as a city of 45,000 or 50,000 inhabitants instead of 17,538, as at present, and of a capital value of, say, five aSa a half millions sterling, instead of only about three and a half millions sterling, aa at present. Greater Christchurch, we -ope, will be able to do more in the way of publio recreation. for the people, especially in the matter of improving the public gardens and reserve*, tlwn the separate municipalities have been able to accomplish. It will certainly be able to go in for larger schemes of improvement, and may possibly be tempted into extravagance. This latter danger is undoubtedly the chief argument against the proposal. No loan for these purposes can be incurred, however, without the sanction of the ratepayers, so that it will be entirely within the power of the latter to impose a check on anything like ■useless extravagance. There is no proposal, however good, which does not present some disadvantages when subjected to the ordeal of keen public criticism. The Greater Cbrirtcaurch proposal baa been scrutinised with

all the care which its importance demand*, and the main argumenta in its favour, it seema to us, remain unshaker. So important a change ought not to be made by anything hi the nature of a snatch vote. It ehould bear upon it the stamp of the full and free approval of a large majority of those affected. ;• We hope, therefore, that the municipal electors will make a special point of attending the poll m Thursday in large numbers, in order to record their votes.