MR FISH ADDRESSES THE RATEPAYERS OF SOUTH WARD.

Evening Star, Issue 3861, 9 July 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR FISH ADDRESSES THE RATEPAYERS OF SOUTH WARD.

On Tbursda evening about a hundred of the ratepayers of oath Ward assembled to hear Mr Fish, one of tho Councillors for the ■ward, <xplain his action in reference to the widening of Princes street. The chair was occupied by Mr Anderson, who, after a few observations, introduced to the meeting

Mr Fish, who spoke as follows :—Mr Chairman and gentlemen, —I dare say that the majority of those present will be aware that the wilenina of Princes street south has excited a very considerable amount of attention throughout the City, and hsa caused some people to make very adverse comments upon tho action I have taken in the matt-r, owing to my being one of the tenants on the reserve which was affected by the widening of the street. WBT THE MEETING WAS CALLED. My object in calling you together, first of all, is to exi lain, so tar as I am concerned, the action that I have taken upon tha matter, and to just fy the course I have adopted in reference thereto. I think that before I have done—if you will accord me a patient hearing, ‘of which I have little doubt—l shall be able to justify myself in your eyes for the step 1 took upon this very important matter. Another reason which has inauced mo to ask you to meet me hero is that, at tne termination of the present municipal year, it is my intention to retire from munio pal politics. I think, therefore, that these two reasons are sufficient excuse for calling you together upon the present occasion. it may be said, and indeed it has been said, that instead of calling a meeting of ratepayers of s outh Ward in a small room like this, 1 should have addressed the ratepayers generally ; but 1 take leave to think that that is no portion of my duty. ORIGINALLY OPPOSED TO WIDENING. Now. it is my intention to state in starting, that for several years past I have been averre to tho widening of Princes street

south. During the whole of my municipal career now extending over a period of eight years—np to tho commencement of tho present municipal year, I have always systematically been opposed to tho project of widening the atroo fc Thefirstconteation I shall make is that i systematically opposed to the widening, and then 1 shall justify the apparent inconsistency of having ultimately voted in favor of tho widening. First, to prove that I have opposed the widening of this street as much as it was possible for any man in my position to do. During the period of my mayoralty in 1870, when the question first arose as to the leasing of sections of what was known as the Maori reserve, I found a very strong feeling in the Council th»t the street should bo widened to its full width, os from the Bank of Now Zealand to Briscoe’s, from the Ship Inn to Manor place. As I have said before, I did not approve of the project First, I thought the coat wou’d be too expensive ; and next that the traffic in Princes street, which waa then, certainly, greater than it is now, would be drawn off by the streets that were being constructed in the rear of Princes street; and also that the southern Trunk Railway, which would be constructed presently, would also tend in a degree to relieve Princes street of the traffic which had formerly been upon it. Having these views *t that time, I used my influence, and successfully, to get inserted in the leases, which were then being issued, a clause giving tho tenants seven years’ security o* tenure in those sections. I was induced to take that action by the belief that if the tenants then upon the reserve got a seven years’ tenure, the feeling in favor of widening tho street would gradually die out, and that by the time the seven years expired, we should bear no more of the matter. As a further corroboration of this, I will draw the attention of tho meeting to some remarks which I made in the Provincial Council on July the 10th, 1873. The ratepayers wll perhaps recollect that at this particular time we had aucceeded in recovering the reserve known as the Maori Reserve, after much litigation, from the bands of the Maories, who np to that time had submitted a claim to the ownership of the land. * Through the intervention of the Superintendent and the General Government, the Maories were induced, in consideration of a payment of between 15,(.00 and 1.6,000, to relinquish any c'aim they might have upon tho reserve, thus leaving it to be dealt with by tho Corporation. But previously to eo dealing with it, it w*.s necessary for the Provincial Council to pass an Ordinance vesting the reserve in the bands of the City Ooun.il, and when this Ordinance uas before tho Provincial Council ia 1873 Major Richardson now the Hon. Bir John Richardson- and Mr Rtont made known their intent-on of endeavoring, when the <.refinance came on for consideration, to set embodied in it a clause to hove the effect of makingit compulsory on the Corporation to widen Princes street south, otherwise the reserve should not be vested in the hards of the Corporation at all. Holding the views which 1 have told you just now I so firmly htld at this time, and seeing that Major Richardson and Mr Stoat would, in all probability, get their views embodied in the Ordinance, and seeing that if they succeeded it would bo useless afterwards to attempt to prevent tho widening of Princes str.et, as the Corporatxoil would then be compelled to do the work, they Ukcd it orp.ofc, I there ore used all the arguments I could ‘possibly bring to bear upon the matter upon Major Richard son and Mr Stout to induce them to eliminate such a clausa from the Ordinance, or rather to prevent them from including such a clause, because I felt sure then, and I feel equally sure now, that if they had persisted in their attempt the Provincial Council would have made it compulsory on the Corporation to widen ths gtrt-Ot. th« provincial Council having *rr»-" qessious to tb* in.-*- ' ,uii various con-

with a view to the work c*rmd out The ‘ Daily Time* 'of the 11th July. 1873, thus reports wbat I said in the provincial Council on that occasion

■When speaking >n committee on the Dnnedin Reserves Management Bill in the Provincial Council last evening. Mr Fiab said he thought it very probab'e Princes street south would never be widened now on Kccount of the cost. Ho thought, however, that the widening of the street was not so necessary now as it was some years ago, »a there were now two wide streets —Crawford, street and Bond street— by which some of the traffic could be earned off. Ihe Corporation, however, were unanimously in favor of widening the street That wa# a foot.

—end if an opportunity should arias of having the work carried out, the City Council would do their utmost in the matter.

I made these remarks with a view of preventing both the gentlemen whom I have named from insisting upon an amendment of the Ordinance, ouch as they proposed, trusting to the chapter of accidents th it the street would not afterwards be widened. I think from what I have said it will he apparent that up to that period my feelings were very stioniriy agamst ihe widening of the street, Now, 1 shall ask this mealing to bear in mind that, shortly after m&k ng the speech in the Provincial Conned I referred to just now, I was defeated in my candidature f< r a seat in this ward in the City Council and that from August, 1873, to August, 1874, I was not a member of the Council. J.'urissg this period

THE CITY WA3 COMMITTED TO THE WORK,

I wish particularly to call your attention to this fact, bf cause it will be seen presently that during th- period to which I have just referred —viz , from August, 1873 to 18<4 it was that the City Council committed the

citizens of Dunedin to the widening of this street, fn order to show that this was so, I need only state that it was during this period tho whole negotiations with the Manse Church Trustees were entered into and consummated by the then existing t 'ouncil, furthermore, I may say this : During the year I was out of the Council the Corporation leased two sections <sf ground 33ft back from Princes street viz., one to Mr Miller, and the other that which Guthrie and Larnach now occupy—on the distinct understanding that the street should be widened back thirty-three feet almost immediately I fail to see myself, at the present time, how tho Council can escape an action at law from both these persons if they do not carry out the agreement to widen the street by thirtythree feet. In order still further to show the action or tho feelings which existed with me in refe-ence to this matter, 1 will read an extract from a letter f sent to the Town Clerk on December 6, 1873, Amongst other things, which it is not necessary to mention, was tha following I shall perhaps be pardoned for pointing out tho very great injustice which is being inflicted upon residents in this part of Princes street by the apparent indecision of the Council with regard to this matter. Were it known positively that the Council did not intend to widen the street, I am convinced a large amount of building would be at once proceeded with, to the permaneut improvement of the street and profit to the residents. I would, therefore, most reap eetfully urge that the Council should decide one way or the other with as little delay as passible.

It will bo apparent from this fact—indeed I know it—that trade was being driven from this end of the town to the other through the insecurity felt by the residents on the east side of Princes street whether the Corporation intended to widen Princes street or nob, and that in com-cquence of that insecurity people who so wished were precluded from erecting permanent buildings, to their own injury and to the de riment of the interests of other residents of this end of tho town. With regard to the leasing of the ground to Miller and Guthrie and Larnaeh, to which I have previously referred, I may state that that was recommended by the Reserves Committee- of which Mr Reeves and other members of the Council were members-unanimously. I believe—and I am sure—his present iVorabip tho Mayor, and other then members of the Council, will say that the resolution of the Reserves Committee was framed and passed by the Council on purpose to fix upon the citizens of Dunedin the widening of this street without any recourse. lam informed that it was the object, and certainly the effect of it was in tho direction I have indicated. I now oome to my

CHAN OK OF VIEWS AND THE CAUSE THEREOF

Now I held the opinions I have just exposed up till so late as December 5, 1873. At about this particular time very great innenco was brought to bear upon persons who either had any influence with the Council, or, by becoming members of it, were likely to have any influence on tho ultimate deci sion on the matter ; and I may say that about this time and friquently afterwards, up to the t'-me of again being elected a member of the Council. Mr E. B. Cargill had numerous interviews with mo—not one, er two, or three, but five or six, and probably more—upon this very question ; and by all the means in his power urged me to use what influence I possessed, or might possess, in regard to the City Council ma - ters, to effect the widening of the street. He said there was a moral and a legal obligation to do it, and pointed out the injury being done to trade at this end of the town * y reason of the work not being gone on with. I could not shut my eyes to the fact that considerable injury waa being done to the residents and to the trade in this part of the town, because the trade was being steadily drawn to the other end of the City ; and I again say that it was the influence of Mr Cargill upon myself which induced me to say what I did when I came before tho electors of "outh Ward, and asked them to return me

as tbeir member. I have, gentlemen, thus brought you to tke period when my views upon this matter underwent a change ; and I trust I have succeeded in showing ch-avly that up to a certain time I held strong view s in a particular direction, which were influenced very much by the cogency of the considerations and arguments brought to b-ar up u myself and other members"of the Council by Mr Cargill. FULFILS HIS PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR WIDENING ' n the 25th of July I addressed the rate payers when seeking re-election, and 1 have iu my hand a copy of the hustings speech I then made. I may quote so much of it as refers to the widening of Princes street to shew that so far as concerns the action 1 took sub sequeutly when you elected me by your votes to the Council was in strict accordance with the pledge and the obligation I made previous to my election; and that iu voting for the widening of Princes street I was not guided so much by any inclination of my own as by my behest to fulfil the pro mise I solemnly made to you on the occasion referred to. In the * Daily Times ’ of July 25, 1874,1 am reported to have said : With reference to the question of the widening of Princes street, he was of opinion that one of two things shqpld be done—the work be Carrierrout at once, dr the idea should be abandoned, and he would be one of the first to test the feeling of the Council on this sub Uct. In order to test the question he would move that the street should be widened, or that the idea should bo given up altog-ther. It was a wrong done by the Corporation to the people who lived in the locality to keep the matter hanging pp so long. He was sure the citizens did no", wish t? c !? unfair to any section, v r till, t • " • ;*V v ... community. The last paragraph refers t6 what I have already said aS to the injury being done to the whole of the residents in this part of the town by the suspension of the matter so long. Individually I did not care two straws whether the street was widened or not, so long as a decision was come to upon the question which wonld be permanent, and W‘-uld not afterwards admit of alteration It will be seen from the extract which I have just read—and possibly many in the room heard me make that speech —that, at any rate so far as I was concerned, 1 cannot be charged with having falsified the trust reposed in me by my constituents in having voted ultimately for the widening of the street. I was elected a member of the Council as from the first of August, but shortly after my election on the 25 hj July, I heard that the City Council was about concluding negotiations with the < hurcb * rustees which would, without doubt, biinl the Corporation to the widening of the street. But hearing that this deed was one-sided to an extent, I determined for that reason and another one, viz,, that t desired to have the opportunity which on the first of August would have as a Councillor, of inspecting for myself all that had been done in the matter with a view of seeing matter. had gone so far that there could be m> honorable jetreat, and of making myself thoroughly acquainted with all that had transpired in the Council, daring the year I was out of it, I, in ocu junction;with other residents on this side of the street, presented a petition to the Council on the 29th July, which was the date upon which the < ouucil were going to determine whether they should sign the deed with the trustees of the Church Reserve or not. Accordingly the following petition was prepared by myself and other r sidents upon the particular block which was affected. This petition is important for the reason that it will tend to shew that so

far as the tenants—those very much abused individuals on whose unfortunate heads the vials of wrathare being pouredplentifully at present—are concerned they protested against the “grievous wrong” which the Council was. going to inflict on them, I will read the petition and the names of those who signed it;

Dunedin, 29fch July, 1874. To his Worship the Mayor and members of the 1 'ity Council.

Gentlemen, —Wo the undersigned ratepayers of the City of .Dunedin having beard that a special meeting of tho CDy Council is to be held this morning for the purpose of “ Considering and ratifying the agreement relative to widening Princes street south, and also to order tho deed to be executed,” beg most respectfully to suggest that cho final consideration of this matter should bo do erred until the new Council is elected, which event will occur in three days from now, for tho following reasons

Ist, That there is a strong feeling existing in the minds of the citizens against the expenditure of money on tho proposed work. 2nd. That if the work is to ho done at all it should bo proceeded with forthwith. 3rd. That through tho that has already taken place, and the doubt and uncertainty prevailing as to whether tho work will ever be executed, building operations in tho locality have been, and will be in tho future, entirely stayed, to tho permanent injury o%he south of the city. 4th. That it is believed the proposed agreement will inflict a grievous wrong upon those ratepayers whose properties are si mated on this line of street.

sth. That no possible injury to the Corporation oan ensue by allowing the matter to stand over for a few days, so that it may be debated by a full Council. For these reasons your petitioners earnestly hope you will accede to their prayer. Edmond. Forsyth, and lUGeill, H. Bielfield, James Winter, Joseph Farra, J). M. Spcdding, Margaret Martin, Guthrie and Larnach, Andersen and Mowat, George Adams, 11. and T, Haworth D. H. Millar, H. S. Fish, junr.

The gentlemen signing the petition are all tenants who are going to receive this enor mous award, as it is said by some to be, but which the arbitrators in dhcharge of their duties considered to be due. It would bo further seen that these gentlemen so l ite as the 29th of July in tho year of our Lord 1874 petitioned tho Council protecting against the “grievous wrong” about to be inflicted on them. There is an old Scotch adage which says that “ Facts are chie's that winna ding,” and if any impartial mind can get over the f:.cte I have narrated, and say that I, as Councillor for South Ward, or as an individual tenant, or that the other tenants on this reserve have done anything in the matter which deserves reprobation, then I sm willing, if that be proved, to erv ptecavi I have stated the reasons which induced me to submit that petition. Gnc of my first acts on re-uming ray seat at the Council was to find out how things were, and if, as had already been reported to mo, the Corporation had bound itself to those people to whom it had leased sections to widen tho street back. L may here remark tf'at if the e was any moral obligation at all to widen the street, it was to the Church Trustees and the parties just referred to; and I have not the slightest doulp that tho Con cil could have escaped from that obligation by mutual arrangement with the Church Trustees. But when I found that things hau gone as far as thoy had, I determined, so far as my vote waa concerned, that I would carry out my pledge on the busting* to the electors to have tho street widened, provided, as I said before, the work waa d one at once. 1 may state that while 1 held there was no moral obligation to the Government to widen the street, the five Councillors outside myself held different views to me—some that there wore both moral and legal, and others that there was a legal obligation only. I combatted their views, but unsuccessfully, arguing that there waa no obligation on the par of the Council to the Government to widen the street in the slightest degree, an t if the Council then liked to det-rmine to recede from the position they had taken up they could do so in honor simply by paying the Government the value of the piece of land which the Government had agree.) to give the Corporation in lieu < £ the piece required for the street—so far as i count n- e no legal obli.at on existed To show that it had been determined Princes street should be widened, those 1 bunoilloi’i who held different opinions to myself po nfcydnut that tho overnmenthad wideiv d tho s'reet from tho Bank of New Zealand to Jetty street to the full wid'h of one and a half chains, and subsequently when soiling tho reclaimed ground bemw Manor p ! ac-j had again provide,! for tho widening of the street there. Thus, there waa only the one block between Jetty street and Manor place—an ugly excrescence between the other parts of the street—which prevented there being one handsome br«.ad street from tho tollgde to tho Bank of Now Zealand. I would have voted for the widening of the street only on that ground, t may here interpolate the remark that I do not regret one thing I have done in this matter (Hear, hear.) Following np the sequence of events in their proper order, I will read a letter from the Undsr-Socrefeary as follows : I am directed by the Provincial Secretary to state for tho information qf the' ’ityCouncil that, »s tho negotiation* in leferoUCd to the widening .RrijjQoq street have not yet been concluded, the Government expect that either tho Btieet wijl be widened or the conveyance of the iiecti ms iu bleck 42 be delivere up for correction ; the 33 feet having been included by mistake. lam tp add that iu no owe will tho Go-, voruuiont consent to give up the 33 feet mdeaa tho street is widened.

I may perhaps ba pardoned for explaining how the 3if t. referral to in tho letter was promised to the Corporation during the time I was Mayor for widening the street to its full wid'.h, and how it is situated from my property in Princes street south to Manor place. When, after seliiug the sections at the back of the reserves between Police street and 'nanor place, and fronting Bond street, whioh 1, as Mayor, bought for a low figure for the Corporation, tho Government, by some error on the part of some of their officials, included those other sections in the conveyance to ihe Corporation. At the same time lam free to admit tho Corporation were not justified in taking advantage of this mistake : they should either widen the street or pay tho money value of the piece of ground, •u August 12, the day on which tho n<nv Council met for the first time, I find Councillor Walter saying thus ;

Ke knew it would be said that it was ridiculous for tho Corporation to expend a few thousands in widening tho street, but he considered it was a durable thing to expend money upon the best and only commercial street in Dunedin. In f «ct they would be acting a dishonest oarfc if they attempted to back out, the Government having granted a valuable piece of ground simply that the Corporation might carry out the widening. And I find Cr. Prosser said if there was

No obligation on the part of the Council to carry out the work, ho should certainly say, “Don’t widen Princes street.” But, so far as he could see, he thought there was a consider able amount of obligation on tho part of the ('ouned to go on with the work. 1:1 e quoted figures to show that tho widening of the street, by increasing the value of tho Corporation Reserves, would cause a sum to flow to the Corporation treasury that would largely contribute towards tho interest on the money required for the work j besides, there would be increased revenue from rates and water-rates. And Ur. Barron said ;

Tlure conld be ae doubt of tho fact that

there was an obligation to widen Princes street. Tho only point was whether it was cheaper to widen the street now or at some future time, and there wore no sufficient figures to show it would be bettor to do it now or two years hence.

And then Cr. Reeves said : There was no doubt whatever in his mind that the Council was bound to widou the street.

This wss one of the opposition members. And then the Mayor was very strong uimn it ; and that I differed irom the whole lot, is not an unusual thing.—(Laughter.) His Worship spoke as follows : He held tho Corporation was morally and legally bound to widen Princes street. They were bound to the Government, to tho Church Trustees, and to the parties who lately purchased Corporation leaseholds and who had to build 33 ft back.

I did not know of this until a much later period. Tho Mayor continued :

Ho believed that tho additional revenue which W'-uld result from the widening of the street would amply compensate the Corporation for the expense that would be gone to Tho Council would bo doing a dishonorable thing if it attempted to repudiate its obligations.

I shall presently show that the eo-oaPed Citizens’ ‘ ommittee asks tho City Council to repudiate its most honorable of honorable obligations. .Now, 1 will just read what Mr Fish said :—■ He was a tenantonthe Manse Reserves, but so far as ho was individually concerned, ho had no interest in the work, as he was one of tho fortunate individuals who had a lease extending over a series of years, and whether the I 'orporation widened the street now or seven years hence, they must compensate him, so that he held he could give an impartial vote. He had seen it_ stated by correspondents, too, and leaders in the daily papers, that the Corporation was bound morally, i not legally, to widen Princes street—that the Council had entered into a compact out of which there whs no honorable retreat. He would say distinctly, that so far as any compact between the Corporation and the Government was concerned, they were not morally or legally bound to widen the street. Ho wished no Councillor to vote for tho_ widening of Piincos street, unless for the public good, and not because there was any moral obligation, as there was none. The street was sufficiently wide for present or fntuie traffio There was another view in which to look at the matter. Tho Government had widened Princes -treet from the Bank of New Zealand to Jot.ty street, and if they went to Princes street, beyond their own reserve, they had another wide street, and they had the narrow part coming in between, making an unsightly excrescence, and by the removal of the excrescence they coul have a good and handsome street. He had considered the matter in all its phases, and he was prepared to support it on the last ground alone. He should support it on tho condition that it can be done immediately. THE WIDENING SETTLED. We hare now got as f r as tke 12th August, and the question that the street should be widened was practically settled. After tho remarks which I have r ad were made a vote was taken ami tho question ducided in the affirmative by the casting vote of tho Mayor. Next a question arose whether it would bo politic on the part of the Council to do the work at that time or to defer proceeding wi hj it uptd the expiry of two years, when a majority of the loar.es on the reserve would t-xpi o by cfliexioa of time In order to settle this matter a committee was, on the motion of Or. Barron, appointed. He moved— That, as the Council has not before it sufficient information to enable it to decide whether it woul i be better to widen Princes street now or within two years hence, a Special Committee, consisting of Messrs Prosser, Reeves, Carroll, Woodland, and the mover, be appointed'to make inquiries, and report to next meeting.” None of the gentlemen appointed to this committee were in the slightest degree interested in the widening of the street, and the result of] their investigations into the matter was that they unanimously reported that it would be hotter to widen the street at once,—(Hear.) On cho motion of Cr. Barron, seconded by Cr. Reeves, the report was adopted by the Council without dissent, and therefrom it was decided the street should bo widened without further loss of time. At tho risk of be ng somewhat tedious I have been compelled, in o?der to bring the whole of tho facts before you to narrate them as they transpired, and anv mistake in them, though I know of none that can be pointed out. THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS

DEFENDED. Now, as to f he appointment of the arbiarbitrators Tho Council resolved to go into arbitration, and L don’t thiak tho 6 fian be two opinions about tho propriety of their so doing. With the appointment of the arbitrators, I have teen particularly blamed by some people in this town, and I have been most particularly blamed for voting f r arbitra ors when I was interested in the matter, inasmuch as I have a building on the block. One gentleman, Mr Learv. went so far in bis candidature for civio honors in Pell Ward as to write to the papers, dinclaiming that he was in any way connected with my family. I do not know, gentlemen, that I .should have been honored by being connected with Mr Leary’s family ; neither do I think it was necessary for that gentlemen to write to the papers explaining that fact. ?hose who have known me any length of time have f»\!ecl tp discover any trace of insanity iu the tbftmbers bf lay family; hut possibly if I had been connected “with 'Mr Leary they misiht hive some grounds for suspicion of that fact. As I have said already, J have been greatly blamed for voting for the appointment of the arbitrators ; but I want to show you that, so far as my vote was concerned, it was impossible it could have influenced tho matter one way or the other ; inasmuch as Mr Hawkins was unanimously elected by the Council, there having been twelve vote* for that gentleman’s appointment: so that if I had abstained from voting be would been elected just the same So far as the other gentleman was concerned—-I say this without the slightest disrespect, covert, or oiherwise—l voted against him ;so that therefore, so far as my individual vote was concerned, I might as well have been absent from the mooting of the Council at which the arbitrators were appointed. Tho statement I have made with regard to having voted against Mr Birch can be testified to by more than one member of the Council, so tnat I am not making it simply because it might bo politic to do so on the present occasion. TUB KERNEL OF THE QUESTION. The question of the selection of arbitrators having been settled, we come to the deed of submission, which would be submitted to them for the purpose o f making their awards Gentlemen, I m;<y frankly tell you that this is the kernel of the whole affair. Upon the proper framing of this deed of submission depended wholly aod tolely the ie»ult the arbitrators would arrive at. Various disputes arose, tho matter was hung up for a considerable time, and ultimate’y the tenants’ solicitors were asked to prepare something which they would agree to on behalf of their clients. When this deed was submitted to the Council I regained, as I before told you. from taking any part in it. The Council, on the motiou of Mr Prosser, without any division, accepted the general principles of the deed prepared by Messrs Sievwright and vstout If th».-re be any blame at all in connection with this matter, it must be in the acceptance of this document. It was the document of all others which should have , been scrutinised most narrowly.

THE CITIZENS NOT TAKEN BT SOBFRI.-K. 1 now come to the statement made by many, that the citizens were taken by surprise in connection with this affair ; first, as to the work intended to be performed by the Council, and secondly as to its probable cost. I assert that the citiz ns must collectively have known all about this matter I need only refer to the fact that it was before them so long since as 1870 ; and that it has been continually cropping up in one form •nd another, either by motions or statements to the City Council, or by letters emanating from the Provincial Council, or by 1 esters to the Press from that time to the present. The Press from time to time urged that it was the imperative duty of the Corporation to widen the street a< a moral obligation to the citizens at large. Therefore, I think that any statement to tho effect that the citizens wore not aware that the Corporation would at some time or another perform the work of widening is utter y groundless and unworthy of consideration for a single moment. WHAT THE WORK WAS TO COST. With regard to the cost likely to ensue with regard to tho widening, [ will first of all refer to a letter which Mr John Edmond —another of those so called grasping rascals, tho tenants—wrote to the ‘ Daily Times' on tho 15th July, 1873, as follows : In to-day’s issue T see Mr John Cargill is agitating the widening of Princes street from Jetty street south. Since 1862 the tenants of the Manse and Maori Reserves have been kept in a state of agitation as to whether they would ever be required to remove 33ft from the present lino of buildings east. The general feeling is that it is not urgently required, the street being wide enough for the present and future traffic. Still, if it is to bo done now is the time i>> save any further expense tho Provincial • loveinmont will have to pay, as at irtsent from L' 20,000 to L 30,000 will be required to f lly compensate the removing lease-holders Their buildings will be rendered utterly useless after taking 33ft from them, as a fall of 40ft takes place in the rear of the Manse Reserve towards Bond street. Buildings of three to four storeys would be required to bring them up to their present elevation ; beside* a few would lose their ground altogether, as there is no ground to fall back upon near Jetty street. Holders of property on the reserve have no ob jeotion to remove back, but would require to be handsomely compensated. Such compensation would involve a sum the Provincial Government will not likely concede, seeing the money could be much better spent. Jno. Edmond.

July 14, 1873. In the ‘ Daily Times ’ of September 13 also appeared a letter signed “ Kate payer,” who also estimated the coat at L3i),oo<\ Then we come to a later date—July 30 and 31, 1874—when we find Messrs Asher, Grant, and Carroll, in the course of their election speeches, giving their idea of the cost. On July 30, Mr Asher said ’‘he had been informed the widening of it (the street) would cost i 30,000.” Un July 31, Mr Grant said he was averse to the widening of Princes street, as the cost would be so great. On July 31, Mr Carroll said that “the Corporation appeared to be bound to the widening of Princes street south. It was said the cost of widening this street would be L.30,000, and he did not see the necessity of it.” Crs, neevos and Isaacs, in the Council, both stated the cost would be L 30.000. f this be so, how can it be contended that the citizens were taken by surprise in regard to the action of the Council ? Or again, I ask, bow can it be contended there was no idea that the cost would reach any thing like vthat it did? Then, we find a few self-appointed Jeremy Diddlers—{l*ud laughter) -Buying “We are the people of Dunedin, and we protest in the great name ef the citizens of Dunedin against a just and honest obligation being fulfilled on the part of pur elected representatives in the City Council.” I say if the citizens as a whole either consent to or endorse the actions of these individuals they will do more to oast a stain upon the municipal institutions of this City than years of perfect purity would suffice to efface.—(A Voice: “Bunkum.”) It may be bunkum with a good many to say what is true: with some men honesty means bunkum, the observance of obligations means bunkum, uprightness and mean bunkum, and t have little doubt it will be found that the gentleman who cries out b nknm so loudly is very much inculcated with the want of thosa p inciplea to which I have just so slightly alluded —(Cheers ) I am addressing my constituents in South Ward, and in giving them an explanation of my conduct I am not addressing the ratepayers outside the Ward.

'rflß I’BMPttßA.fiOn HALL MEETING.

Then we come to the resolution passed at the meeting at the Temperance Hall— That this meeting, whilst recognising tho advantage to the City which would be gained by the widening of Princes street, considers that the City Council should not at present take any further action towards widening the street, as all the leases (except two) of the Church tenants will expire on the 4th April next, token such tenaiUs will he bound to vacate possession on getting payment of the value of their buildings simply.

I have no hesitation in saying that the statements made at that meeting with regard to tho leases, are wholly and irremediably fake—(Hear) and I further believe that it must have been within the knowledge of some of the speakers on that occasion that the statements they then made, and with which they blinded the meeting, were false, ime of the speakers Bftid

That at the expiry of the leases in about eighteen mouths’ time the tenants would be bound to give up possession of the land upon getting only the mere value of tho buildings then existing. What is the fact ? The leases are for fourteen years, and at the termination of that term tho land is to bo valued, and then pub up to public auction. Provided there is another person outside tho occupying tenant who is willing to give a higher price for the land than the tenant is prepared to give, then the incoming tenant must pay to the outgoing one the value of the buildings on the ground, as arrived at by arbitration previous to the ground being put up to auction, if, on the other hand, the tenant is the sole applicant, he is bound under the lease to resume possession of the ground in spite of everything. I am lest in amazement, t at gentlemen of suchwell-known integrity, honor, and desire for truthfulness as Mr Cargill should be led into the grievous mistake of making the statement he did to the meeting—a statement that made by another person would not have received the slightest consideration. MESSRS. OARGILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WIDENING. I may bo pardoned if I again refer to the fact that it was to Mr E. B. Cargill’s influence and that of his brother John that the citizens of Dunedin are more indebted for the widening of Princes street than to any other thing. Hepeatedly did Mr E. B. Caruill urge myself to vote for it. I know that he visited Cr. Isaac and used hia influence with him ; and I believe 1 am correct in saying that he used the same influence with others. Yet these gentlemen, honorable men forsooth, ask -the citiz ns to join with them in. an act of gross repudiation —(Saar, hear.) I ask the meettiug not to be misled by wolves in sheep’s clothing.—(Applause.) THE COST OF WIDENING TO THE CITY. Now L will refer to an important matter which has been before alluded to—of the thing looked at as a simple question of pounds, shillings, and pence. You are aware, | from time to time, that since the award has i been made publio most extravagant stats*

meets have b.-ea m-oie tumugh tue columns of he Proas, and mere particularly by private letters, speaking of the work. You have seen it actually stated in the papers ihafc L40,0i,0, L 59.000, or even LIOO,OOO would be the cost; and that the result would be to fix upon the unfortunate ratepayers an extra fifteen pence in the pound. You have hoard all sorts of wild statements ; but it will be my duty to show you tiy figures so far as this matter is concerned that in a commercial light there will he no lo s. but, so far as I can see, a positive gam. I invite attention to the following figures DIBTOR. Amount of awa -d to M mss tonants £26,766 17 6 Probable cost from thence to Police street ... 5,235 2 6 Probable cast of making road ... 2,000 0 0 Probable other costs 1,200 0 0 £35,200 0 0 Making a total cost of £35,200 0 0 Less value of land given by Pror. Govt. ... 2,000 0 0 Less v due of Moss’s buildings 400 0 0 2,400 0 0 Making a net total of £32,800 0 0 Annual charge for interest and sinking fund at 7 per cent, for 30years ... 2,298 0 0 2,206 0 0 CREDITOR. 50ft frontage to Princes street (? iv en by Church Trustees) at £lO per foot £SOO 0 0 Increased annual rateable value of property to be erected, say £3,2()0, at a rate of la 3d .. 200 0 0 Water rate* on do at Is 4d ... 213 0 8 1m m ad iate leasing of block of hind from Police street to the Spanish Restauant (vacant for four years) ... 750 0 0 City rates on this block, say on building's rateable at £3,000, at Is 3d ... 187 10 0 Water rates on do at Is 4 ... 200 0 0 Making a total of £2,050 16 8 Or a gross annual deficit of only £245 3 4

advantages op widening,

I ask you calmly and seriously to consider this statement, and having done so to tell mo whether you think the payment of such a miserable sum as i 250 annually is worth sticking at when you compare with that oxpendituro the immense a 1 vantages, not only to this end of the town, but to the city generally, of the widening of Pri nous street throughout its entire length, and so making it the handsomest and most commodious street in Dun din, and a work of whioh the oitisena now and in time to come will be proud of, and make our descendants say that the men of the present geneiation had foresight and wisdom to do it even at its present cost. In addition to this L have only to mention that by the erection of permanent and substantial buildings on it, that side of tho street which at the present time is an unsightly block will become an ornament to the city; and I ask you to consider tho special advantages rf such works to those residing in South Ward, whether shopkeepers or those working for shopkeepers. Is it worth while to encourage the Oily Counoil to an act of repudiation, because you cannot got over the fact that the Corporation is bound honestly by this arbitration ? Would anyone dare to apply suo’i a principle to his private business ? And, outside of these things, I would a*k y“U to consider what effect such an act of repudiation would have upon the foreign capitalists to whom we must go for our fumre loans.

THB TENANTS FORCED INTO ARBITRATION.

The te- ants did not want the work to be done. They were pressed over and over again to arbitration ; some declined and some refused, a d ultimately they were threatened that if they did not agree to arbitration the Corporation would force them to do so by putting into operation an Act of tho General which gives them absolute powers to take land for city purposes That is a fact, and 1 shall challenge contradiction. Having been forced into their present position, was it fair or honorable that the tenants, in the event of their losing the actions they are compelled to defend, to be mulcted in costs? It has been said by some that while they desire to upset the arbitral! m, there was no desire to mult tho tenants in costs. I would tell those who tn-Jco this statement that tho tenants, in tho event f their losing, have no recourse auamst the Corporation. TUB CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE AND MR JOHN CARGILL.

Who are the thieo gentlemen who are in the position of relators in this matter, and who a*k that the City Council should bo prevented from carrying out an honorable obligation? Th-yaro Messrs John Cargill, James Brown, and James Rebin, and I am not aware that any ene of them during his long residence in -fcajfo has done anything to justify him in assuming a leading position. The meeting will perhaps remember the historical three tuilo s of Tooley street, who, in writing a letier to the Kmperor of Russia, addresstd him in this manner We, tho people of HJnglaml ” Now These three gentlemen, Messrs John Cargill, James Brown, and James ohin, occupy a somewhat analogous position, though not such an exalted one as the Tooley street tailors. But perhaps I am wrong in saying that Mr John Cargill has not done much in public matters. Those who have been here twelve or fourteen years will perhaps remember that, as a member of the Town Board and one of the largest shareholders in the Gas Company, Mr Cargill was, as I believe, the motive power of saddling the citizens of Dunedin with a seven years’ gas contract at Ll7 10a per annum per lamp. This was one of the public acts which no doubt justified Mr John Canrill in assuming bis present very high moral position; and, b.<- -the-bye, talking of arbitration in connection with Mr John Cargill, it will be w ell tor me to tell you a little circumstance that has come to my knowledge. It so happens that Mr John Cargill at the present time is the lessee of some land at the Teviot, which the Government are constrained to take from him for the purpose of encouraging settlement. I was saving that Mr John Cargill and the Government are arbitrating for the t king of certain lands required for settlement in the Teviot district. As a matter of fact, for this land, if it shonld prove to be agricultural. Mr Cargill is by law only entitled to half-a-orown per acre ; but his witnesses, 1 believe, say that the land is purely pastoral, and for this he, I believe, in his simplicity demands twenty shillings per acre I I do not blame Mr John Cargill for

suiting what ho chiuha tu.; auu m but I will put a hypothetical case, .-uppose that the gentlemen who arbitrate upon this matter arrived at a decision to award Mr Cargill the emu he claims, and that the Government afterwards turned |cound upon him and said “This amount is much too largo, therefore we cannot respect the arbitration, and will get out of it by a legal quibble/’ What would be Mr Cargill’s reply ? Just this, “ That the Government are a set of dishonest men, who ought to be scouted out of society." I don’t believe Mr John Cargill is such but I leave him to take the inference as he likes.

WHY SOME COUNCILLORS OPPOSE THE

WIDENING-. I now beg leave to express my opinion as to the opposition of other members of the Council to the widening, which, as you are aware, was agreed to by

the casting vote of the Mayor lam strongly of opinion -and I say it advisedly—that the opposition of the members of the Council who voted against this work was not dictated so much by their objection to the widening of the street as upon tho grounds that the exponditure of money in South Ward would bo depriving Bell and Leith Wards ef their share of the money if it were otherwise appropriated. In proof of this T may mention the fact that the six membra for South and High Wards voted for the widening, and the six members for Bell and Leith V.’arda against it, lam sure from my knowledge of how things go on in the Council, and of the jealousy which exists on the part of members of the other end of the town against the spending on the south end, that that was the real .9m5-

stratum to the opposition i f tho members. ■WHAT THE ARBITRATION REALLY INCLUDED. A great many people think that the Corporation had only to pay to the people on the Manse block the value of the buildings as they stood on it, I shall endeavor to place the affair before you in a different light, so that you may arrive at a correct conc'usion upon it. No doubt had the Council only to pay for that, the amount of tho arbitration would have been 18,000 or L 9.000 at the outside; but it should bo borne in mind that the tenants, by moving back 33 ft will be forced to pull down tho whole of the present buildings and re-erect them in brick or stone. It is doubtless known to m-ny present that tha ground immediately at the back of the present buildings dips considerably, in some cases as much as 2>ft; and iu wrder to bring the new buildings up to the level of Princes street, will entail tho cons ruction of most expensive founda ion', which, in my own case, will cost about L6OO or L7OO, and be, for practical purposes, comparatively useless. The ground at the rear, too, is “ made ground,” and this .fact necessitates ojnerete bedding, also very costly. There is also the cost of removal of stock from present buildings previous to the alterations and back again afier their completion —also the cost of damage to such stock in removal. There is further the c ost of street retaining walls, to be provided at a coat on the block of one thousand pounds (which amount is included in tho award.) The tenants would require to be out ef their premises for four mouths at a considerable loss of business to themselves, for which they are justly entitled to c incineration. There is also rent of temporarygpremifces, re-erection of shop fixtures, and finally t e cost of the re-erection of tha entire buildings. All those matti rs had to bo considered by the arbitrators ip making their award, and I take leave to thi k that very few of the public have sufficiently thought of them, more particularly those who have been taking action against tho payment of tho award. Since it was not of tho tenants’ seeking or by their wish, the street was being widened, why should any of them be compelled to i nil down prom ter that were amply sufficient for their present business requirements, and to erect substantial buildings at a large cost? These things ought to be considered, but I am sorry to say that with many of those who are agitating this matter they ar* utterly ignored. If this meeting place themselves in the pos tion of the tenants they will put on tho aff ir a very different construction to what the gentleman I have referred to, iu their blindness, hav > done,

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

It is not my businea* to justify the award"; but if it had been instead of L26.C00 only 1.8 (K;0, and the tenants had cndeavoied to get out of it by a legal quibble, what would Mr Cargill and his friends the Toole.y street tailors of Dunedin have said? Simply that the tenants were dishonorable men, who did not deserve -he slightest consideration, and who should be forced to carry out their honorable contract whether they liked it or not. Thus, t n u»o a homely phrase “Is not what is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?” -{Hear, hear ) Of the arbitrators I will say this : I believe them to be honorable men—as honorable as any of those who are now assailing them It runs'; also be recollected that the witnesses who cams before the arbitrators were exaumo i on aath, and can it be said of any of tbe«o witnesses that he told a lie or committed perjury? Both the tenants and the > o> "ration had the best legal advice it was possible to get to guide them. Can it then be said with a shadow of justice—without one tittle of evidence which was brought before the arbitrators bomg seen - that, too amount of the award was unjust? I hope and trust that L have satisfactorily, explained and justified the part I have taken in this matter. In acting in the direction I did, I merely fulfilled the pledge I made on the hustings. I am not chargeable with a single wrong in the matter. I have mot tho citizens face to faee as a man. as I have ever done in my publio life, during which I do not know of having done anything about which I was afraid.

Mr Fish answered several questions satisfactorily, when

Mr Slb inger, in proposing “That this meeting thanks Mr Fish for his address, and expresses confidence in him,” expressed the pleasure that he (who had come to the meeting prepared to condemn Mr Fish’s action) had exp rienced in listening to bis clear and able address, and gave expression to his individual opinion that the citizens themselves were mostly to blame for the t rinecs street widening matter, by reason of their inaction in reference to it, Mr Wai ickm seconded the motion.

Mr Gray proposed, and Mr Cairns seconded a simple vote of thanks for the address.

The motion was carried, only four or five hands being held up f .r the amendment. Mr Fish in returning thanks expressed the aat'sfaotion he felt at tbo vote, more particularly as he was about to retire fr nn the position he had occupied so long. Hi; hid always endeavored to do his duty as member for the ward, and he did not come across many, unless those who opposed him on personal grounds who did not give him credit for that desire. It was impossible that a man could please everybody, but he could do bettor, viz., try to succeed, and he trusted, he had done his beat in that direction.

Mr Taylor moved, and Mr Lowry seconded—"That this meeting requests Mr Fish to reconsider bis determination to resign his position as Councillor for South Ward,” which was carried nem. con. < The meeting was closed with a vote of thanks to the Chairman moved by Mr Fish.