NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2402, 6 March 1915, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY

The differences which have arisen in the ranks of the Royal Choral Society over tho conductorship are much to be regretted. ■ Those members of the society who desired to see the position offered to Mr, Page, the City Organist, have; not done that gentleman muoh service by their somewhat embittered advocacy of his claims. Mr. Page is a distinguished musician whose services the City has been fortunate in securing, anu of which it might avail itself with advantage much more fully th'an it has done._ All lovers of music will join with us in hoping that we may have the pleasure of 'seeing Mr. Page before long at the head oil a flourishing orchestral society. At the same time,_ Mr. Bloy has his claims to recognition. He came to the assistance of the Choral Society at a critical moment, and if a majority of the members of the society, having had experience of his control, desire to see it continued, tlie minority supporting _ another oandidate must accept tneir disappointment with what grace they may. The sooner this unhappy little incident is forgotten the better. The main thing for Mr. Page's admirers is not to find fault with those who have not seen eye to oye with them in this particular case, but to unite in making the Orchestral Society under his baton a- vigorous and thriving organisation.

Mr. Eraser told us the other day that the Government was not to blame for the prolonged stoppage of work on the new Parliament Buildings. From the legal point of view, Mr. Eraser 'is no doubt on sound ground. Tho Government sneciGed that New Zealand m-arblo snould be used for certain portions of the building, and the Contraotoi'3 have not been ablo to produce an

acceptable stone. The result is that a great undertaking has come to a standstill, contractors and sub-con-tractors are unable to carry on, and workmen are thrown idle. In the ordinary course of business the onus is on the contractor to comply with the specifications of his contract. But in a work of this magnitude is it a proper thing'for the Public Works Department to specify that a certain stone shall bo used without first ascertaining that the stone exists? Some pertinent observations are made on this point in a letter appearing elsewhere in this issue. After the ! trouble experienced with certain stone specified for the General Post Office, it would have bcen_ thought that all necessary precautions would have been taken in advance to prevent arecurrpnce. It is quite right that the' ; State should protect itself as against the contractor, but neither the experts of the Public Works Department nor anybody else are justified in requiring those with whom they do business tp perform impossibilities. And, so far as the public can gather, the Department has as yet no clea,r idea whether it has or has not demanded an impossibility in the present case.

Something _is radically wrong somewhere with the city leases on the reclaimed land. When the Corporation, for instance, asks £6 ss. per foot rental, and the arbitrators award £3 95., and a similar difference runs through the list, it is clear that either the tenants are benefiting at the expense'of the city or the Corporation's ideas of value are excessive. 1 Mr. Ske'eeett, in his letter to the City Council, contends the foot of the trouble is in the conditions of the lease adopted by the Council. The tease/ he tells us, gives no fixity of tenure, and provides no real compensation for improvements erected on the land ]by the tenant. The depreciation, according to his argument, is entirely due to the city's own misguided policy in dealing with its property! This, we believe, is very near .to.the mark, but it does not get over the fact, as pointed out by a recent correspondent, that pity leases let by public tender have brought rentals, for instance, of £o per foot,' while adjoining sections have been allotted at £3 ss. by the arbitrators. To this Me.' Skeeeett replies—not, we think, altogether convincingly—that figurps much in excess of real values I are often given to obtain what may. be the only piece of land available in a desired locality. Me. Morison, in his recent letter to the Council, pointed out that the rentals arrived tat on behalf of the city amounted to from 4 to 4i- per cent, on the capital value of the sections. The awards, taken generally, thus give an average' return of about 3 per cent. Mb. Ames, the City Valuer, stated at the hearing in December last thqt the lessees would all jump at the chance of getting the freehold pn the values he had fixed. If this is correct, and the city cannot make its leases more attractive, and so obtain a better return ' from them than at present, it would thus be a decidedly profitable transaction to sell the properties and invest; the money. Such a business-like suggestion, however, w6u!cj no doubt scandalise our' leasehold friends beyond measure. !