CORRESPONDENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2171, 22 April 1908, Page 1

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Correspondence on public matters is welcomed at all times, but it must be distinctly understood that this journal is in no way associated with the opinions of its corrospondeuto.] THE MAYORALTY. [To the Editor.'] Sir,—l was very much surprised to read Mr. E. H. Mann’s letter appearing in your last issue, challenging the correctness of my figures regarding Mr. Mestayer’s sewerage scheme, and, were it not for the fact that he is a Borough Councillor, and, was lor many years, a schoolmaster, thereby leading one naturally to expect him to know something about figures and be able, to make a summary of a sewage report, I would not have replied to his letter. 1 regret to say that he is absolutely in error in his attempted correction. Now your correspondent (referring to Mr Mestayer’s £125,000 scheme, with which I make the comparison), says ‘•Tills scheme he considers will sunoly tlio needs of a population of. 30,000.” Mr. Mann has confused Mr. Mestaycr’s statement that “he has designed the outfall .sewer (from DeLautour road, Kaiti, to IVainui) with a capacity to suit a population of 30,000,” which is a very different matter to claiming the whole scheme to be suitable for a population of 30,000. A''ain, your correspondent has made a ’sad- error in his next quotation, when he says (again referring to Mr. Mestayer’s report), “I estimate that £83,000 will be ample to carry out the work, etc.” ; the words “on this basis” have been omitted by Mr. Mann from his quotation, and, had lie made a correct quotation,it should have read, “On this basis I estimate that £83,000 will be ample to carry out tlic work, etc.” Now, the basis to which Mr Mestayer refers excludes areas Nos. 5,0, 7, 8, and 12, so dearly the £83,000 quotation is not a scheme to serve the whole borough. I was comparing Mr. Mestayor’s full scheme lor the whole of the borough with an alternative scheme to serve the same portion, which Mr. Mann has failed to comprehend, and f could use no other of Mr Mestayer’s estimates than his complete one. Again, Mr. Mann quotes the eost of pumping as £llsO per annum; this, according to Mr. Mestayer’s report, is for areas 1,2, and 3 only, while I was dealing with the whole borough. 1 can hardly conceive why your correspondent should make such mistakes; the tact, is, my. quotations and figures are absolutely correct. I am aware that there are some of the Councillors desirous cl adopting a partial scheme ■ costing about £90,000 chargeable against the whole borough, but to serve only a small portion of the borough. This, I frankly confess, would not have my sympathy or support, as I consider that- if the whole is to be charged, the whole must be served.—l am, etc., AV. DOUGLAS LYSNAIt.