THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1881. A DANGEROUS NUISANCE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2348, 12 October 1881, Page 3

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1881. A DANGEROUS NUISANCE.

When we find the police what some, no doubt, characterise as ultra-cautious in the matter of clearing the footpaths of articles exposed for sale, it may not be out of place to call the attention of the authorities to a nuisance dangerous to life. We refer to the practice which has obtained in various parts of the city where buildings are progressing of dispensing with the hoarding and footpath outside. This was most marked in connection with the erection of the block of brick buildings in Manchester street, now completed. Here, every day, whilst the buildings were in progress, the passers by had either to run the gauntlet of a shower of pieces of brick, &c., or to go out in the road. Prom the large amount of wheeled traffic constantly passing up and down the street this latter course was not able to be pursued with safety by the unfortunate pedestrians. Only so lately as Monday afternoon, just at the conclusion of the proceedings at Mr. Ollivier’s testimonial, large pieces of brick were falling from the new building now in course of erection next the Oddfellows’ Hall. We could, if necessary, multiply these cases, but enough has, we think, been said to show the urgent necessity that exists for carrying strictly into effect the same precautions in this matter that exist elsewhere. If persons erecting buildings desire to have the use of the footpath, it must be under such conditions as will provide for the comfort and safety of the public. At present this is not done, and, we think that the hanging up of a few articles of merchandise outside a shop, or the fact of a case remaining a few minutes on the sidewalk, is very trivial compared to the risk which hourly exists of a few bricks falling upon the heads of the innocent and unconscious wayfarer. We hope that now attention has been called to this evil, which is becoming far too prevalent, the authorities will see that the public are studied a little more than they have hitherto been. At present our streets are monopolised by a few builders, and in parts it is not only inconvenient, but positively dangerous for people to pass along. In no other city in New Zealand would such a state of things be so quietly submitted to as here.

THE MODERN OLD MAN OF THE SEA, There are fow, perhaps, who have not read those charming stories in the “ Arabian Nights,” and with pleasure. Doubtless the one in which Sinbad relates his vain endeavors to get rid of the old man will be in the memory of our readers. History, it is said, repeats itself, and we here in Christchurch have a striking illustration of the truth of the saying. The Town clerk is our Old Man of the Sea. For some unaccountable reason, though the majority of the representatives of the ratepayers carried a resolution, the intent of which was to get rid of this gentleman, ho still, limpet-like, clings tenaciously to his offics. IVo had thought that the crowning height of absurdity had been reached vdieu a deputation of the Council waited on tho Town Clerk to know his worship’s mighty will and pleasure as to whether it pleased him to continue in his role of Old Man of the Sea to tho Sinbad of the city of Christchurch, or to gracefully retire into the cooler shades of respectably. But we were wrong. There was

i yet one lower depth of humiliation and degradation for the members of the City Council to drag the ratepayers down to. Having, by seven to four, affirmed that the time had come, in the interests of the city and the ratepayers, when a change in the departmental administration should ho made, they coolly turn round and stultify themselves by affirming, a month or so afterwards, that no such a thing is necessary; and this, ho it remembered, on not one tittle more information, save that the Town Clerk oracle absolutely refused to speak to his suppliant masters. Wo should not quarrel for one instant with a public man for changing his opinion on good grounds; on evidence put befor* him altering entirely the circumstances under which

ho first gave his vote. But in this case there is not a shadow of excuse for the conduct of two, at least, of the Councillors who voted with the majority on the former occasion. Wo allude to Crs. Ayers and Lambert, What rag of consistency or independence can either of those gentlemen claim now ? The position, as we have pointed out, is unaltered. The Town Clerk is not a whit more fitted for his position to-day than he was a month ago. The interests of the citizens,

if they were so thou—and these two gentlemen by their votes affirmed it—are jeopardised just as much now. And yet, forsooth, these paragons of consistency—these gentlemen who have in this matter hunted with the hare and run with the bounds—now assist to pass a resolution which simply says in effect, “ Wo have been a lot of fools. There is but one wise man, and his name is Haskins.” Wo ask any sensible man if this is conduct befitting public men in whoso hands the ratepayers have placed their interests ? We say emphatically no, and, more than that, assert that those two gentlemen are totally unfit to hold the position they now do from their vacillation and indecision in a matter so nearly affecting the public interest. Let us just call attention to what they did on August 29th, with a view of showing how completely and utterly these gentlemen had then—apparently, at least —made up the small modicum of mind they possess between them. Not only did Cr. Lambert express himself in favour of reconstruction, but he went further, and in this he was joined by Cr. Ayers. Cr. Thomson moved an amendment that the matter should be deferred till the now councillors were present. This, one would have thought, two gentlemen of such wonderful consistency of opinions like Crs. Ayers and Lambert would have supported, because it would have afforded them an opportunity of ascertaining which way the new men would vote, so as to ensure their being in a majority. But no, they would have none of it. They wore so thoroughly convinced—on August 29th—that the Town Clerk ought to be rooted up that they voted against this amendment. They required no further time to consider, and therefore it is that amongst the noos voting on Cr, Thomson’s amendment, we find Crs. Lambert and Ayers. Comment is needless. Any men who would without rhyme or reason publicly apparent—whatever private influence may have been brought to bear—turn deliberately round and eat their words, are in our opinion totally unfit to sit in the Council, or to retain for one instant the confidence of their constituents.