The Press Wednesday, December 7, 1927. The Summit Road.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19177, 7 December 1927, Page 10

The Press Wednesday, December 7, 1927. The Summit Road.

It has been known that for some time past the members of the Summit Road Trust have been dissatisfied with the conditions under which the objects of the Trust have been carried on. That dissatisfaction has reached a point at which the Trust has found it necessary to issue a statement in which it sets forth, briefly and in general terms, its disagreement with Mr Ell. Since Mr Ell began to interest himself in "the "Summit Road scheme," there have been periodical difficulties, and the two most striking things in the chequered history of the scheme have been the zeal and pertinacity of Mr Ell on the one hand and on the other hand the generosity and patience with which the public-spirited men who have given money and service for the advancement of the plan have endeavoured to work with him. A great deal of work has been done, but unfortunately heavy liabilities have been incurred, and some of these are of a kind which the members of the Trust have not been able to see without discomfort. The indebtedness of the Trust, which is responsible for the whole Summit Road scheme, amounts to £7680. Of this large sum, £SOOO represents a mortgage on the Takahe building and the Cracroft Hill reserve, and £.1700 is owed to the Bank under a guaranteed overdraft. There is nothing in these liabilities to cause concern, so long as the interest is paid and public sympathy can be enlisted for the ultimate discharge of the debts. But there remains nearly £IOOO in current debts, all of which should have been paid: £BOO for tradesmen's bills, £BO for wages, and £IOO for interest. The Trust points out that the only present source from which it can meet its liabilities is the income derived from the tea-bouses. The amounts paid in to the Trust by Mr Ell have been insufficient to meet the current liabilities, and " the finances " of the Trust are steadily going down

" hill." It is complained that although Mr Ell makes additions to the general scheme, additions which are of value to the public, he hands these over loaded with liabilities, and claims the right to deal with the income of the Trust as he pleases. The Trust takes the view, which is obviously the only right one, that no development work should be carried out except out of such money as remains after the payment of wages, tradesmen';- ; counts, and interest. Mr Ell, the Trust says, takes a different view, holding that he may, if he thinks fit, use the current income for any new work he thinks necessary. The Trust has endeavoured to induce him to act in accordance with its views, but, so it would seem, without avail, and as a consequence three members of the Trust and the treasurer have resigned. ' Mr Ell can scarcely need any more ample testimony to the public's appreciation of his work than he has already received, but if he does, he cannot more surely obtain it than by recognising that the Trust is responsible for the financing of the scheme, and that if the Trust abandons its responsibility, as it seems, and not unnaturally, inclined to do, the whole scheme will collapse, or at the very least suffer a serious set-back. The public is grateful to Mr Ell for his work, but it is grateful also to the public-spirited men who have given financial aid and have striven to put the finances of the scheme on a sound footing, and it knows that without their assistance and supervision the scheme cannot be carried on. In the presence of such a fact as that there are arrears of nearly £IOOO in respect of interest, tradesmen's bills, and even wages, it is obvious that some very definite change in policy and management must be made without delay.