THE WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET.

Evening Star, Issue 3820, 22 May 1875, Page 2

THE WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET.

Crowded meetings were held last evening in Bell Ward at the Oddfellows' Hall, and in Leith Ward atCotter s Caledonian Hotel, “to hear explanations ESi5 e £“ 11 l for tb® Words as to the part they took relative to the widening of Princes street.” At . . THB »Sl* WARS KSXTIKO tiie chair was occupied by Mr W D Sts wart from *S& B^ d lr that i h ® -h® 4 r ®oßfoed a no«t JSL Be ?£ a for his absence, tk**; owing to business arrangements, he had already sent in his resignation as councillor ; and that Messrs Woodland and Carroll would doubtless explain his action the question. The chairman further mentioned “ r George Cook had given it ns his opinion that the proceedings of the City Council m the nutter of the widening of Princes street were ultra vvrts. • v Cr. Carroll explained that when he was elected last year he did not give a definite answer whether he should rote for the widening or not, but- he afterwards found that the Council stood committed <o the work. From the pressure brought to bear upon him he had a suspicion that extension would t hav P» previously ascertained that tbreeofthe tenants estimated the eost not over £12,000, ho moved in the Council for getting a aeflmte estimate which should not exceed L 14.000. His reason for so doing was that the Council miirht. if necessary, withdraw; this proposition was negatived, and one earned that the tenAnts shouldbe writtento asking them if they would go to arbitration. That was the motion which lea to all this extravagance, and it was only carried on the casting vote of the Mayor. The arbitration deed had been said to take a most one-sided view, but valuation was loft by it, to some extent, with the valuators, as optional whether they should give valuation on ino claims or net. He had voted against the widening and given it all the practical opposition ho could. None of those who supported it believed it would cost L 20.000. He fully sympathised with the action of the citizens. By the service of ux injunction the matter had been virtually taken out of the hands of the Council, but in his opinion the Council, having bound themselves to the award, could not repudiate it j still it was for the citizens to say whether the Council had exceeded its powers The arbitrator* had by their acts since the arbitration appeared to him to be of unsound mind. Their sittings had peon spun out. Without imputing anything improper to any Councillor, he could not escape saying that Cr, Fish had, by his acts, left himwoif imputation. He (Cr. Carroll) had comnutted himself thus far—that he had agreed to the widening of Princes stieet, provided the cost did not exceed Ll4,ooo.—(Applause). L6,oooJ|or L 7,000 would, he believed, satisfy the Corporation tenants, ihe matter had been very unfairly stated by Mr ft' B. Cargill, •who, as a Church trustee, knew well that the trustees had given the Council the option of widening Princes street two years before the leases expired or not at all. Cr. Fish voted tor the matter being referred to arbitration. He believed there was a clause in the Municipal Corporationa Act prohibiting Councillors from voting m a nmtter in which they ‘were person»Uy interested. If the matter had been illogolly, earned through, a Councillor not having a right to vote #n the question in which he was interested, he (Cr. Carroll) would not be in honor bound to support the decision of the Council. But he would take no such step until it was shown thatiGi 7a Waa illegal. It the other members wete called on to resign, he should resign, but he did not consider that by resigning he would be doing any good in the matter. He had wondered at the tSe Coimc*l citizeaß w kenthe question was before

Cr. Woodland said that from flrat to last he had detenninaily opposed the widening of Prince* street. He denied that the Corporation was bound to execute the work; and to demonstrate his view, read a letter from the Provincial Government t3** Se u Ct , llthe 0011,1011 a Bite for a fourth school, the Government would not expect tue Corporation to widen the street. He was never so surprised as when the Mayor gave his costing vote in favor of widening the street. Had he (Or. woodland) been Mayor—as he was in hopes to be someday (loud laughter)—he would have appealed ) He voted against the ai Duration, because he disbelieved in it. The arbitration was a complete swindle from beginning to end—(loud applause); and he used the word advisedly. He would do all in his power to upset the affair, but admitted that the Council had entered into a bargain, which in honor must be carried out as far aa possible. The Chairman said he thought the councillors were unfairly trying to throw the onus of future action on the citizens. If the Councillors thought the award had been brought about by fraud or mistake, it was theirlduty to resist the performance of the award.—(Applause.) Mr Sligo, in moving that the approval of the meeting be given generally to the conduct of the ward s councillors in connection with the Princes street widening scheme, said the ratepayers should devote their energies to getting the street widened on equitable terms.

On Mr Least's motion, it was resolved, “That m the opinion of this meeting it is undesirable that any arrangement involving compensation be made with the Corporation tenants till the leases ahull have expired”; and it was unanimously agreed to request the whole City Council to resign.

THE LEITH WARD MEETING. About sixty ratepayers met at Cotter’s Hotel last evening in response to the invitation of their representatives iu the City Council. Mr W. Harrop was elected chairman.

Cr Beeves said the immediate cause for the call“S meetin S w& 8 the fact of his being told by Cr. Grant that a requisition was in course of signature asking the Ward’s representatives to explain the action they took in the much-vexed quesu .»{ the widening of Princes street. However, be did not think the ratepayers had anything to blame them for, as they had, in their places in the Council, consistently opposed the measure, and they stuck together all through. The meeting was not held for the purpose of in any excusing their conduct; nor was it for the purpose of throwing any blame on their fellow-councillors, for he was wiUing to give those gentlemen credit for the best and purest motives. Exception might be taken by the representatives of the other Wards to the action taken by himself and colleagues in calling the meeting, but as long as his bearers were satisfied it was perfectly agreeable to himself, Cr. Grant, and Cr. Gibson, whatever the other Councillors might think iu the matter. As to go over the whole question would occupy a ‘ long time he would acquaint them with the various steps taken by the Corporation in the matter. No one oould doubt the convenience of widening the street, as it would afford a capital site for a cabstand; but at the it was first mooted the amount of traffic fully warranted the step, for there were several firms carrying on a large business iu that part of the street and the roadway was considerably blocked up with waggons and drays. Since then, however, these people had moved into other parts of the eity and the matter assumed a very different aspectso, in 1872, a deputation from the Council waited on the Superintendent with a view to coming to an understanding as to the liability of the Comoil to widen the street. The Government suggested the question as to what price they would be willing to pay for 33ft at the back of the sections; and in the slate to which the negotiations had reached the Manse reserve tenants were “ hung up ” in a state of uncertainty between the parties. The Church then commenced to “letter" the Council, a letter coming nearly every month asking what they intended to do about the widening. [One letter was here read. 1 There was then nodoubt a tacit understanding, if not % legal obligation that the Council would widen the street, and they wrote asking the. tenents what compensation they would require. These replied as follows :-Bielfleld, L 2.500; Edmond, L 2.700; Parra, LI,BOO j Pish, L 2.000. The Kc serve Committee than, on October 9, reoonunen* 1 the widening, but tuat woe referred beck, end on November 20 the committee recommended the Coimcil to resort to arbitration. [The speaker here rend report of that meeting, in which he was reported as having protested against the work as a waste of money—himself and Crs. Beck and Woodland voting against it.] That was the first decided step he hid utken since representing the Ward, and he done so because he felt that the work would be an enormous one, and would prove a source of great expense. Mr Beeves then referred to the exchange of the site of the South School with the Government, and continued his narration of the progress in the main question before the meeting. In July 1874, the Council met to consider the draft agreement between the various parties. [Beport of meeting read.] Now, it was a curious thing that the ratepayers, although having this matter constantly before them, had not more iuteieat in it. If, during his remarks, hs should appear to apeak too much about Himnnlf, he only did so to indicate hia abar-w-tar ; and.

thi name time he gtTi wot eredit to hie eolleagues 1b the Ward, and even did not ■wish to reflect on those Councillors who held a different opinion on the Princes street question. Well, from that meeting the matter was adjourned until the newlyelected Council should meet, and when it again eame up he opposed the arbitration scheme, because he had a dreadful horror of arbitration, and also knew that au important item of the tenants’ claims would be for goodwill of business while their premises were pulled down. He thought that to pay a specific sum would be cheaper than to arbitrate. Then the committee appointed by the Council decided that it would be better to do the work then, than to wait two years, when the leases would fall in. He was one of that committee, and their reasons wore that for the 60 feet frontage they would get from Government they would obtain a rental of L4OO per aunum, from the frontage by the barracks » higher rental, also from the section near Briscoe’s, and higher rates altogether. On August 20 Or. Prosser moved that a competent valuator be appointed, which was carried, and Messrs Gillies and Street waited on the tenants, who received them •ourteously, but declined to enter into a valuation with them or give them any information; therefore Messrs Gillies and Street declined to act. It was then decided by a majority of one to go on with the arbitration, at which he (Vlr Beeves) felt dreadfully ■ore, and threatened to call meetings of ratepayers in every Word to protest against the work, as he was literally ashamed to walk about and see the numerous works necessary to the city which should have first been carried out. He now regretted that he had not done so, hut the fact was that everybody he met and spoke to on the subject, instead of feeling os be did, seemed of the opinion that the street should be widened, and that it could be done for about 1,12,000. He thought it would cost double or treble that sum; but seeing the ratepayers had had it before them so many years and yet showed so little interest in it, he felc he should be more blamed than praised for making himself busy—and that was the only reason for not calling them. Mr Beeves then referred to the York place improvement, saying he objected to the expenditure of large sums in snob works—which inflicted more hardships than benefit—while drainage and their footpaths were not provided for. Besides, their borrowing powers were limited to L 200,000, of which LIOO.OOO bad been already broken in upon. In concluding, he -said that in Louden there were streets through which 20,000 vehicles passed in the twenty-four hours, so there could be no necessity for widening Princes street for years to come. In answer to questions, Mr Beeves said Mr Haworth’s premises were moved back to the new street line without any cost to the Corporation. He believed that when the question arose ef purchasing the Waterworks by arbitration the Corporation solicitors advised that it would be illegal for the Council to enter into any bond for the payment of au unascertained sum-, but be could not say if the action of the Council in the Princes street case would be illegal—anyway he would be no party to jeopardising the honor of the City by repudiation of the transaction. Crs. Grant and Gibson then addressed the meeting, stating that they had persistently opposed the widening, and both answered a number of questions pnt to them. Mr C. Smith then moved, seconded by Mr D. B. Hat —"That, in the opinion of this meeting, the City Council, as a whole, has sadly bungled from beginning to end the widening of Princes street, and that the thanks of the meeting be accorded to the Councillors for Leith Ward for calling this meeting, and for giving an explanation." Mr Hooo moved, as an amendment—“ That the widening of Princes street has been bungled by the majority of the City Council, and that the ratepayers of Leith Ward have every confidence in their representatives.”

The amendment was negatived, and the original motion was carried. A vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings. ■