The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2556, 27 April 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1871.

Oh tremendous Justice, Midas ! Who dares oppose great Justice, Midas ? Midas, Mayor of Dunedin, alias H. S. Fish, has pronounced judgment, and slandered the Evening Star. Apollo ! we intercede on his behalf. Let no outward sign of thy displeasure disgrace the Civic head. His ears are long enough. He opened them to the lame story of John Barnes, City Councillor, who cannot read, and assumed an article in the Star he (H. S. Fish) had not read to be “ unreliable.” He hath not long to sit upon the Civic throne, and his words are of themselves sufficient to betray bis folly. So spare

him tho mark of Midas, and when his year is up, let him return nnbranded to his obscurity. Having thus shewn our kindly feeling to the Mayor, we turn to Mr Barnes and the Corporation, and we intend to have it oat with them. Mr Barnes yesterday took exception to the account we gave of the roundabout process of stone-collecting for road-metal in the Water of Leith, and was foolish enough to try to justify it. We will endeavor to put the case clearly before the inhabitants of the City, and leave them to say whether or not we ai’e reliable in our statements. We asserted that the first process of the Corporation was to •< gather large boulders together into “ a heap in the bed of the Water of “ Leith.” Our authority is the evidence in the case of Carey v. Barnes ; and we invite attention to it on two grounds to be stated hereafter. We take the following from the Daily Times, lest the evidence should be denied or pronounced “ unreliable ” ;

A. Mackenzie, Inspector of Works for the Corporation, said : —“ About a fortnight ago he pointed out to Mr Baines the stone which he might take. William Nichol said:—There was a heap of stones which had been partly collected by the men in the cm] loy of the Corporation and partly by Barnes’s men. This was not the only evidence to the same effect, but it is all we can find in the Daily Times's report. Our conclusion is twofold :—First, that the Corporation, when taking stones for breaking up into road-metal from the bed of the Water of Leith, collect them into heaps for convenience of loading ; and, secondly, that Mr Barnes has had the advantage of Corporation labor in assisting him to collect f.tones for pitching the embankment of his railway work. We should like to ask the Corporation if this is a privilege confined to City Councillors, or if every railway contractor, is entitled to the help of men paid by the Corporation to do his work 1 Having established the fact that stones are collected ready for loading, the remainder of the process follows as a matter of course ; and the boulders lie the whole length of George street for inspection, blocking up the water-courses, and endangering the horse and carriage traffic at night. Those who will refer to the numerous letters received from passengers who were annoyed by splinters of stone scattered by the blows of stonebreakers’ hammers, and published in the papers annually, apart from personal experience, will fully endorse ail that was written on Saturday, and which was so curiously misquoted by Me. Barhes. There is not one word in that article that is not true, assuming the evidence in Carey v* Barnes to be true. Now, as to the manner in which the City funds are disposed of. We repeat, “it is the ■“ duty of the Council to do as much “ work as possible with the means at “ their command.” Mr. Walter is a peace-maker ; but he should not attempt it at the sacrifice of City interest. Whatever resolutions the Corporation may have arrived at respecting stonebreaking machines, they must have been adopted in ignorance. We invite the attention of the public to the report of the Public Works Committee, and ask whether the City ought to be satisfied with a system that, through bad management, renders certain works so costly as to prevent improvement where it is needed. The Committee recommend :

Also, that Cumberland-street north, as referred to in a recent memorial, he metalled, conditionally that the work can be done within the amount already allowed for outlay in Leith Ward.

In spite of the assertions of John Barnes, contractor, and Mr. Walter, we assert that the money spent on road-making is not laid out to the best advantage; that the Corporation go the most expensive way to work instead of the most economical; and that in consequence of not taking advantage of modern inventions, they limit the extent to which improvements might be carried. This is not a question of opinion : it is n thing of fact. The resolutions may have been adopted in ignorance and continued because of some red-tapism, but they arc not irreversible. The folly displayed in yesterday’s discussion, was in trying to put down a public journal by denial of what must be manifestly true to every man who can tot up a column of figures, and knows that every removal and turning over of a heap of stones costs money. If our readers will refer to our article on Saturday, and read it side by side with this, we do not imagine that there will be one outside the Corporation who will not say we have proved every point, and that inquiry is necessary into the privileges of City Councillors, and the best means of laying out the Civic funds.