CORRESPONDENCE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3250, 1 December 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

NABOTH'S VINEYARD,

[To the Editor of fcho Daily Tet.eguaph."] Sib,—lα Mr M'Dougall'g answer last night concerning Olive Square, he entirely missed the point of a plain question. He treated it as a " side issue," and entered into a disquisition as to the relative merits of the various proposed sites for a Town Hall—a very proper question for a municipal councillor, but out of place at the meeting. Mr M'Dougall may have failed to see it, but my question referred to a very important matter of general administration—the sacredness of public re serves. The advantages or otherwise of other proposed sites have nothing to do with this question. Olive Square may be a very convenient site for the purpose —as it might be for a printing office or hotel—and at present can no more be applied to one of these purposes than to the others. An Act of Parliament will be required before the people's park can be desecrated by bricks and mortar. Upon the action taken by the borough representative the fate of such a bill would largely depend. Mr M'Dougall was merely asked if he would oppose the bill, if introduced, and gave no answer. The vague assurance that he was " not wedded to Clive Square " does not meet the case. It would be a grievous/ wrong to the people of Napier if the only open space in the heart of the town were taken from them. The question was a fair one, put in no hostile spirit, and was entitled to a straightforward answer. When every politician is a " Liberal," as is the case in New Zealand, it becomes necessary to test the liberalism of condidates by questions. Among these tests a very important one is the question of the protection of public grounds, parks, and commonagee.—l am, «fee, R. COUPLAND HaEDING. December 1, 1881.