THE CARGILL MONUMENT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2759, 20 December 1871, Page 2

THE CARGILL MONUMENT.

To the Editor. Sir.—l was glad to read iu your issue of last evening at least one protest against the reckless expenditure of rates in the proposed “Improvement of the Octagon” by running the street line right through it. 1 presume the removal of the monument is to be only the first step in this so-called “improvement ; the next of course will be to lease the ground on either side of the street for building purposes, so as to continue the line of shops intact. Now, sir, even if this can be legally done, 1 venUire to submit that it would be no improvement at all, but rather the reverse. I will not, however, on the present occasion dwell upon that part of the subject, but would just like to ask if this pet scheme of “ improvement” can be carried out, at least in the very summary manner in which it is proposed to he done It may serve to throw some light upon the question suggested above if I just jot down tho following points : Ist. The .Record Map of the City gives to tho owners of land on each of the eight sides of the Ootagoji a frontage to the main street of tho City. 2nd. Tho piece of ground still known as the “Octagon” (notwithstandiiigoursapient Corporation have “improved” it into a bnsturd rirc't) was handed over in trust for “public garden it was so set forth in the Crown 0 rant and is so marked on the map of the City, and therefore it seems to me that the owners of property, as referred to above, have a legal right not only to a frontage to the main street, but also to the pleasant look of a “public garden.” Now, sir, in view of the above facts, I should like to know if the more ip.i: di.rH of a pity Council can shunt off the owners and occupiers of property iu a main street of the City into a soft of beggarly back alley,

from which the main traffic of the City has been diverted, and also deprive the inhabitants in general of one of the main lungs of the City ? I am aware that certain “reserves” of the City have, by Ordinance, been handed over to the Corporation to “manage”; whether this particular [one is included in the number or not I am not clear ; but even if it be so, surely the power to “manage” must be limited by the terms of the original grant, otherwise it is not “ management ” but spoliation . —Yours, &c. Citizen. December 20.