The Chronicle LEVIN. TUESDAY, JUNEm 12, 917. EIGHT MEN IN A HURRY.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 12 June 1917, Page 2

The Chronicle LEVIN. TUESDAY, JUNEm 12, 917. EIGHT MEN IN A HURRY.

At long last, the street lighting committee of Levin Borough Council is doing what it should have done long a-j;o: it is putting its views before the public/* Councillor Mfltheson's letter

— appearing in another column of- today's Chronicle—may convince „ some buigesses that the street lighting committee has a strong case. It leaves us unconvinced; and undoubtedly we will not stand alone. But, «onvinted and unconvinced people alilcc are on 0110 common ground: their opinions find expression only after the month-old council had hurriedly resolved upon a subversion of a* long-estab-lishod scheme of lighting; a resolve of which no previously uttered intent had been made public, and concerning ■which 110 individual member of the public had been given an opportunity tn record either protest or approval. AVhat maikes the case worse, ie the fact that the council's predecessors in office bad discussed a scheme for removing the Oxford street lamp pedestalsj and had elicited such an expression of public disapproval that they allowed the scheme to drop; evidently, and wisely, recognising that a council put j into office without public pledges as to I iiny of the existing municipal ventures or conveniences should give weight to any considerable volume of public opinion that manifested itself for or against their views as councillors 011 any important matter. In failing to fallow this precedent, the new council has stultified itself, and whether it recedes from the position it took up originally or mistakenly "sticks to its guns" and projects its unnecessary scheme .right through the opposing phalanx of public opinion, it will in either . case begin its career bearing the label of Eight Men in A Hurry. A-nd what was the need for the hurry? If .one concedes that it is ridiculous to suggest that the hurry arose From the previously-ascertained fact that a considerable portion of public opinion was against the proposal to remove the central pillars from Oxford street, one is left wondering whence the cause for hurry difl arise. We leave the; question for any member of the street flighting' committee to answer. On rests the objections of many who have not the deeper basic objections to the change that sway certain objectors. No council eleoted without the giving of public pledges has a right to alter existing services without first allowing the burgesses 'an opportvmity to give "timely" expression to their #iews.The difference between the present proposal and one to do away with all lighting in outside streets of the. borough would be one of degree only; in principle (or want of it) there would be none; vet wo doubt if even the reputed leader of the Hurried Eight would carry matters as far as that. They liave carried things too far as they now are; and a hark back should be made. The influential petition put in at last meeting

of the council surely gives sufficient reason; even in the light of one councillor's contention that the signatories represented only one eighteenth of the*' iborough population. Quite apart 'from the erroneous arithmetic of the calculation, and the gratuitous assumption that the signatories were all bachelors or spinsters, there is the fact that 112 citizcns, mostly ratepayers, signed the petition of protest, and that they represented about one-fourth <of" the borough population, and a large proportion of the ratepaying total. Certainly there is no surety) that the remaining two-thirds of the citizens are in accord with the council's decision to alter the lighting system ; no opportunity to form an opinion had been given them. If the counciljiad been alive to the need of the situation it would haye taken a plebiscite on this important- proposal. Perhaps it will bo deemted a mode of suitable reCourse for final settlement should easier methods fail to conimend themselves to councillors. , To briefly the queries in the letter of thip. chairman of the streets lighting committee, we would say (1) that <a clear.-summary of the provisions of the gasivprks manager's report was' contained in the speech of the chairman of the 1 streets lighting committee reported in ,■ til 6 Chronicle' -on -*the • day hext succeeding the council's meeting. That speech: and others made by councillors that evening were voluminous enough to crowd out both the gasworks manager's report and the leading article;,of The Chronicle. To our mind, the speeches reported made publication of the report unnecessary ;and doubtless some councillors would have cheerfully .dispensed with the leading article also. However, they "did" appear—the leading article on the Thursday, and the gasworks manager's report in the next succeeding issue. Councillor Matheson says that "the main bogey The Chronicle has adopted to defeat the lighting committee's proposal is the danger to the future existence of the trees." In this he misrepresents us; wo have written three articles on the subjects, and (save for one paragraph in the last article of the three) we never made the slightest reference to possible danger to the street trees. None the

less, there "is" 'a real danger to the trees dormant in this new scheme of lighting Oxford street; it ie an obvious one to anyone who notices the way in which the present newly-elected council is "making bonfires in the tennis courts of precedent" (to quote the late Sir John McKenzie's famous phrase), and upsetting the policies and intentions of- 2 Levin's former councils. The Chronicle's chief contention is that the present street lighting committee wishes to substitute for the existing scheme of lighting an inferior one, having for its sole recommendation a capacity to eave expenditure to the extent of £30 per annum. Does 'Levin municipality need to practise this petty economy P If it does, let councillors be ,thorough, and reduce the sclipme of expenditure on the new; lighting, system td • bedrock; it is inferior to begin with; but why not have it j a little more so, if the saving of a few pounds per annum is so desirable?' But to contend that 'Levin Borough cannot afford to-day to maintain a system of lighting that was undertaken and financed when the present iborough endowments of £500 per annum produced no revenue for the 'borough is absurd. Levin has no need for petty economies; and none for the better light on the footpaths to which Councillor Miatlieson's letter refers so naively. Councillors,—as councillors,—should revise impressions based upon their private predilections towards a well-lit footpath. The very term "street lighting" indicates what | street lamps are meant for; provided the footpaths are well enough lit to r permit of pedestrians seeing where they walk, there is no good ground for cavil against the municipality. Even with the worn out arc lights at present in use the footpaths are lit fairlyi well. With the new "Humphrey" lights installed on the central pillars, footpaths and roadway alike will be well illuminated; and we are sun- that the busmess folk who desire specially good illumination for their premises will be prepari-u to boar the extra cost themselves, as tliev always iiav< done. ' We have once again dealt at great length with this question; but wo are determined net to all 3 v tie <*hiof issue to become fogged in verbiage— whether our own or Councilor M son's or both— so w© conclude by asking councillors to face squarely the oi.tstanding . question:—Who. l,, r in oidei to reduce the "boost ir'' troubles ■t is imperative to do away wholly with t! 3 present scheme; or wh j thfj- it i» nis all incontrovertible fact that an alteration of the style of lamp iikoil in tli present .. pedestals will not suifire to overcome the '"booster" troubles— •nh'cli admittedly are the gaswoiks manager's chief cans*, of complaint. Tlie £10 per annum that would hare to 'be spent 011 a Lamplighter's services would be money well spent. As a contrary resource, tho municipality is to be put to 'an expense of £80 (by the advocates' figures), but more likely well over £100 when the final cost is "Ascertained) to instal an ihferior system. It is a system that will hot be as- satisfactory from, an esthetic viewpoint, and which at best will only excel in footpath illumination as contrasted with that of the present, system.