THE PRINCES STREET WIDENING.

Evening Star, Issue 3959, 2 November 1875, Page 3

THE PRINCES STREET WIDENING.

To the Editor. Siu,—Before active steps were taken to set aside the awards made to the Manse I!‘verve tenants, it was suggested that the (Jity Corpo. ration should take those steps, and go into Court on the ground that the awards were, on the face of thsin, umeasonahle and excessive in amount. "When City Councillors were asked their opinion as to the propriety of this suggested course, the replj—even by who were opposed to t ie widening of the street — was, in effect: “ Oh, no, we went into the arbitration with our eyes wide open, and k would saw ur of repudiation to refuse payment of the awards ; the Corporation is bound by the acts of the majority, &c. ; hut we will he, oh, so thankful! if fhe Citizens Committee will break through the awards and give us an opportunity of getting the work done at a more reasonable cost.” Sir the Citizens’ Committee, for the purpose of securing justice to the ratepayers, undertook t > try and stop payment of the awards. In so doing they accepted, on behalf of the citizen-, the risk of being charged with countenancing repudiation, which they believed was repudi dion only in appearance. But the committee will not take any p rt in. or be identified with going track to a consideration of the question, whether the stree shall be widened or not. To do so would in our opinion be repudiation in reality. The committee have, so far as the case has gone, succeeded in stopping payment of the awards because —and mark the reason the Corporation should have made a direct bargain with the tenants, and not have delegated others to make one for them. And now, those of the Council who are opposed to the street widening say, in effect: “It would have been repudiation to refuse to pay an utterly unfair price, it wou’d have been morally wrong for us to have attempted to obtain a reduction iu that price, and, at any sacrifice of the ratepayers’ money, a high standard of Corporation morality must be maintained. But it will not be repudiation to refuse to pay a tair price—oh, dear, no ! There will be nothing morally wrong in our attempting to get altogether out of doing the work. Using the Citizens’ Committee ;.s a buffer, we will make the committee fight it out with the tenants to the bitter end. If there is repudiation in the matter, we will throw the onus on the Citizens Committee and preserve, if w t c can, the high moral character of the Corporation!” Sir, if the street is to be widened, it appears to us to be very clear that the Corporation have to do one of two things: either they have to compensate the present tenants, all of whom, except two, hold leases expiring in April, IS7G, but with a clause iu their leases giving them an opportunity of re-purchasing their pieseut holdings; or, they have in April, IS7G, to compensate tenants holding twenty-one years’ leases (except in the case of the two before mentioned) of the ground necessary to widen the street. Now, sir, if it is morally, or otherwise, incumbent on the Corporation to widen the street, under which of the conditions above stated would it be better to deal with the Manse lleserve tenants?

Many citizens think that there is no danger of tie Supreme Court’s decision being reversed in thc Appeal Court, but “the glorious uncertainty of the law” has passed into a proverb, and there are able lawyers who think differently. If, after being beaten in the Supreme Court, the tenants had at once determined to go to the Court of Appeal, it would have been the duty of the Citizens’ Committee to have fought them there, and it would have been the duty of the citizens to have given the committee both moral and monetary support. But the tenants having given it to be understood that they are willing to compromise matters, the committee are now in a different position, and having, so far as the case has gone, accomplished all they were appointed to do have now a right to expect the Corporation to do all that in them lies to effect a reasonable and amicable settlement. Two things have been accomplished by the Citizens’ Committee. It has been demon strated that, if arbitrators will make cxcesdve awards, by mistake or because payment is to come out of the public purse, there is a possibility of such awards being aside; and an oppoitun? l y is given to the Corporation to save some thousands of the citizens’ tnom-y. To that task it is the duty of Councill ra to add ress themselves; not now to consider wh ther or not the street shall be widened. However excessive the awards may have been, it was the action of the Corpora, ion which led up to them, and it is almost universally admitted that the great majority of the teu -nts did nothing in the matter but what most of ns would have done in like circumstances. And fair-minded men will admit that the tenants should not be made to suffer as if they were the only sinners. A majority of the Committee consider that there is no occasion for the street being widened at all, and that even at the cheapest it will he dear; hut we, in common with other citizens of *he same way of thinking, should have taken steps to make our opinions known at the proper time, and councillors who now talk of a plebiscite should have spoken of that at ihe proper time, which was before they decided that the work should be done. Because they failed to _ see, or did not take that' Hue of action when they ought to have done so, is uo_ reason why they should go back upon an issue (i.c., the non-widening of the street) which was raised at the Temperance Hall meeting only to be unanimously condemned. _ We think the Council will only be justified in going back to that question v, uea it becomes evident that nothing like a fair compromise can be effected.

Having come to the conclusions contained in this letter without pressure from any man, or body of men, and believing these conclusions to be based upon just and proper grounds, and knowing them to have been conscien'iously arrived at after careful consideration wi have felt impelled to ask you to publish this, in the hope that it may be of some service in bringing about a settlement of this long-debated Princes street widening question. In concluding, we may point out that it seems to us nonsense to talk of a plebiscite, or of not widening the street while the tenants have a right of appeal, because were the decision of the lower Court reversed, the- City would have to pay whether our rulers widened the street or not, J. Eobin. Alkx. Sligo. E. Hudson. r l hob. Beveridge Members of the Princes street Widening Committee*. Dunedin, November 2.