WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET.

Evening Star, Issue 3821, 24 May 1875, Page 2

WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET.

To the Editor. Sib,— As the motion I moved at the meeting of ratepayers of Leith Ward lass evening seems to have commended itself to your judgment, as the one that “ contained the pith of all that can be said on the subject," t will, with your permission, give a few of the data upon which that motion was, in my opinion, fairly based. Many of these, indeedTl stated at the meeting; hut owing to the very late hour at which the motion was made (because I wished that, first of nil, my fellow-ratepayers present on the occasion should hear every word our representatives had to say for themselves) my remarks, as a matter of course, were not reported. Sir, I will say what l have to say iu as few words as possible, and I will deal mainly with what I fully believe to be facts, irrespective of the exact dates upon which they may have occurred, which I hold to be a matter of comparatively trivial importance. My first fact is this That while the Province had, or supposed it had, full control of all the lands necessary for the purpose, the Mouse Reserve alone excepted, it resolved through its representatives that Princes street from the Bank of New Zealand onwards towards the south should he widened by 33ft on the eastern side. I will not ask either you or your readers to say whether that was a wise resolve or otherwise, hut hasten on to my fact No. 2, which is this: —That in obedience to tins resolve the Executive Government of the Province did so widen Princes street; (Ist.) Prom the corner now known as the Bank of New Zealand onwards as far as the Ship Inn; and, (2nd.) Prom the comer opposite the Imperial Hotel on to the Kensington Rood. My third fact is this: —That as regards the whole of the intervening space—the part not as yet widened comprising the Manse Reserve, and what was then known as the “ Maori Reserve," distinct and definite arrangements were made and engagements entered into, as for as was possible at the time, for the purpose of completing this “ widening" process thoughout. That as between the Government and the Church trustees was, if I mistake not, ou the point of being carried into effect, and would have been so carried into effect but for the unfortunate question of the Province’s legal right, which arose, to deal iu any way with the Maori Reserve. Next comes the well.knowu fact which, for convenience sake, I call No. 4. This particular reserve—the Maori one—with all these well-known engage, meats previously known respecting it, was by the “ Reserves Management Ordinance” handed over to the City Council to manage, subject to the approval of the Superintendent us to leasing, &c. Why the Superintendent over consented to sign a single lease for the thirty-three feet previously resolved to be thrown into a street, and so clearly and distinctly marked off as a street on all the maps in use in the Government offices, I know not, nor do I care to inquire; suffice it to say that the • question of right being at length definitely settled, the Church trustees and their tenants very naturally indeed opened up the question, “ Now yon have the power, do you really intend to widen the street at this particular part or not?" 1 pass by the many inter, vening stages pursued by this enquiry—finally the Government’s reply culminated in, “ Apply to the City Council, to which body the management of the reserve has been handed over." Well, sir, upon the receipt of this ultimatum, as regards the Government, the Church trustees and their tenants did apply to the City Council, and from that day to this, iu my opinion, they have both been most shamefully bamboozled, the City Council addressing themselves not to the questions of right, equity, and justice, but to asking oue another, “ Is it desirable?” “Will it pay?” &c., &c. Well, sir, if you will take the trouble to read up their proceedings, you will find them first resolving that it was desirable, and that it would pay; uext, that it was not desirable, and it would not pay. Then, again, they resolve and re-resolve about equally each way, but at last they twice resolve “ definitely ” that it really was desirable, and would pay, if it could be done at a price. All this time, let it he remembered, and that with full knowledge of all the engagements that had been entered into, the City Council was deriving a princely nnnjial revenue from the 33ft frontage handed over to them for a public street

It length, as ptit by Councillor Carroll at the Beu ward meeting (I quote bis words, with a reservation hereafter lobe explained): “ The Church trustees gave the Council the option of widening the street two months previous to the leases expiring or not at nil.” Upon the receipt of this very natural resolve on the part of the Church trustees and their tenants not to be bamboozled, the final resolve to widen is taken. Nest camo the question—by what means was the resolve to be carried into effect ? First, it is to bo done upon a fair and open adjustment of the difference between the “ compensation *’ ■ as&ed and the respective amounts the City Council was willing to pay, and next came in the idea of arbitration. I again pass by all intervening stages to call attention to a fact that, according to the statement—an nncontradicted statement--made,at the Leith Ward meeting,that notwithstanding all Or. Reeves’s conscientious scruples and many protestations, the very last motion of all that referred the whole question to the arbitrators, whence all this trouble, vexation, and loss have come, was moved by Cr. Barron, and (save the mark 1) seconded by—Cr. Reeves 1 Now, sir,let us go hack, as it were, to the statement mndebyCr. Carroll, and quoted above. His statement that the Church trustees had bound the Council down to open the street within two months of the expiring of the leases of their tenants, is true to a very limited extent indeed. Why, sir, the fact is notorious that by far the greater part of the street resolved to h© widened had been so widened already. Of the part that remained to he widened, by very for the greater proportion of it was in the hands of the City Councillors themselves to he dealt with as they pleased.Swithout a single penny of, compensation to any person whatever. Now, sir, I maintain that if the Councillors had manifested anything like the amount.of business tact they would undoubtedly individually have displayed in the conduct of their own personal affairs, then they would first of all have made a fair and liberal offer by way of compensation to the Church trustees and their tenants, and if this were not accepted they would have said something to this effect: —“ Very well, gentlemen, wo will widen in our own time the portion of the street over which we have now full and undisputed control, and then, when the Manse Reserve sticks out some 33ft into the main line of Princes street between the Bank of New Zealand and the Kensington Road, then, gentlemen, and not till then, we will talk to you again on the subject.” Now, Sir, from what I have said above, your readers will, I hope, see the full force of the motion I’proposed. : That the course to which I have referred was not pursued, I cansider an error of judgment on the part of the Council, as a whole, and for which they arc justly blameable. But, sir, while I consider the members of the Council, as a whole, blamahlo to the extent I have indicated for (os put by the seconder of my motion) ‘‘the confounded mess” into which the City hasheen brought, I regard the representatives of Leith Ward and those who conspired year after year with them to prevent this being done, as by far the most blamable ; because hut for their persistent obstructiveness, I believe the whole thing would have been long since done, and that—as the saying goes—“ for a mere song,” or, at all events, would now he in a fair way of being done at that price. In part proof, at least, of my last statement, I may say that, at the meeting, I put it to Cr. Reeves as a question, Whether or not it was a fact that certain portions of the rood line, as regarded the Corporation Reserve, had not already been carried back the required depth of 33ft?” Ho replied, “It was a fact.” To a further question, “At what expense to the Corporation ?” He replied, “ Nothing at all.” To a still further question, “ Whether he did not think it would he quite possible to get the 33ft line put hack the whole length of the Corporation Reserve and on the same terns P” He replied, “He thought it was possible—quite possible." Upon the receipt of this reply I drafted in my own mind tho motion 1 subsequently proposed, and which I rejoice, for the sake of the credit of the ratepayers, they carried by a large majority as against the amendment. Before actually proposing my motion, I listened attentively to almost every word our representatives who called the meeting had to say (no easy task I assure you, K r Editor, as your reporter, I havenodouht, can testify), and the result of the whole was a very forcible reminder of a number of schoolboys who, having been caught in the very act of committing some real or supposed offence, sought to ward off the strokes of the uplifted rod of the angry dominie by the exclamation, “ Please, sir, it wasn’t me!—(Bool boo!) Please, sir, it was them boys there!” To this miserable attempt at exculpation, my motion was Intended to say, and in effect did say—“Let’s have none of your humbugging; you are all in for it, so take your licking as yon individually deserve, and go and be better hoys for the future!” Having said so much, you will please allow me to add, in all sincerity, that I consider we are all very deeply indebted indeed to all onr City Councillors. They do much very valuable service, and they get “more kicks than halfpence” for their pains, nnd for the valuable time and wholly gratuitous labor they bestow we cannot surely do better than award them onr best thanks. —I am, &c., Chart.es Smith. Dunedin, May 22,1875. P.S.—Permit me just to add that I have written the above hastily—upon the spur of the moment. It is_ therefore quite possible that in some minor particulars I may have been mistaken, or done individual injustice. If so, I shall regret it, and he ready to retract. My words have been hasty, but not my thoughts. It seemed to me that as, upon this very complicated and long-protracted matter of the widening of Princes street, we were all pretty much in a fog, it became the duty of every good citizen to do what he could, or thought ho could, towards clearing it away. Some of your readers may perchance remember an old cartoon in the English ‘ Punch’ wherein Mrs Britannia is made to say to Lord John Russell—applicant for a vacant “ place—“ Well, really, John, I think you are just a trifle too little for the placet” In view of the very serious difficulties into which we have been brought in connection with the Princes street widening business, one might, perhaps, he pardoned for being led to the conclusion that the “place” was just a wee little too big for our City Councillors “ as a whole.”—C.S,