PUBLIC OPINION.

Patea Mail, 2 June 1882, Page 3

PUBLIC OPINION.

Contributions, Letters, Inquiries and Answees thereto, are invited on Farming. Commerce, Politics, and matters of interest to the Patea district. Names of writers need not be Printed.

A PROTEST AGAINST , SELFISHNESS. I would like you to let some of those Opposition men have it straight. Mr Milroy in the Council, and Mr Dale outside, are playing the game of the Family Party. The}' put their heads together (a pity some one did not knock them together) to defeat this borrowing scheme, and what for? Just to crow over the Mayor, and show that the Family Party has got the whip hand of the municipal coach. I am sick of their selfishness. They pretend that they do not oppose borrowing it. is only spending they oppose. What I can .see is that any excuse is good enough for them, so long as they bamboozle the ratepayers and defeat this scheme. They do oppose borrowing ; for did not both of them pretend to show at the public meeting that if this loan was raised there would be nothing left for other improvements ? What is that but opposing borrowing? They try to blow hot and cold. •

We can all see that Mr Milroy wants to control the Mayor, but Mr Sherwood is not to be worked : he can think and plan without Mr Milroy’s dictation. If Mr Dale had been elected Mayor, Mr Milroy would have been the real ! boss. Anybody knows that. What they , want now is to prevent this loan scheme being carried by the ratepayers, so that Mr Dale may get in as Mayor next year, and bring forward a scheme of his own. It won’t be his own exactly, if Mr Milroy is anywhere about. We know pretty well what this Family Party scheme will be. It will be a loan of £3,000 to improve Leicester street, on the plea of making an easier grade into the town because it would cost a trifle moreta make Bedford-street an easy grade and a respectable approach. What is not spent on Leicester-street will go for Mr Dale’s electric fight, to be put up by the local agent of the London Brush Company. That is how the cat jumps. Mr Milroy has had the spending of the Town Board funds for many years round his property and a very few other properties ; and he is seized with a fit of economy just when'the town is entitled to borrow for improving its main approach fi’ora the railway station. If publicfunds are not to be spent by him, the scheme must be all wrong. I have got tired of this sort of thing. I don’t consider that the town has anything to dp with Mr Dale’s scheme. As one of the oldest ratepayers in the place, I should be sorry to see the town stand still until next yean to suit Mr Dale’s little scheme. I agree that the Mayor’s scheme is now the property of the public, and I will use every influence I have to get it carried next Tuesday. Ol Ratepayer.

THE LEICESTER STREET PARTY. How is it that the Leicester-street party are ashamed to own up ? I have not seen or heard one of them acknowledge the real reason for opposing the Bedford-street improvement. It is a poor case when the advocates of a public improvement are ashamed to own what their real object is. They think they have only to keep quiet about Leicester-street until they upset the scheme for improving Bedford-street, and then they can propose to improve Leicesterstreet because the .public refused to vote for improving Bedford-street. I can see that is the little game. Several ratepayers have informed me that they have been told this and assured that by Mr Dale and Mr Milroy. But I notice a decided change in the opinion of some ratepayers since the public meeting,' for they could see plainly that the opposition at that meeting was not animated by public spirit, but was selfish and unfair. I have no doubt now that the Mayor’s scheme will be carried at the poll. Bedford Street.

A COUNCILLOR’S OBJECTIONS. You would endeavor to make the ratepayers believe that a party exists in the Council to defeat the scheme because it is the Mayor’s, Now the scheme as first laid before the Council was the construction of Bedford-street the full width, foootpaths kerbed, trees planted and fenced, a drain to terminate at the cattle wharf, Egmont-street South to be formed to the Heads, and the sand clayed over, Egmont-street North. to be made full width with the footpatcs to northern

boundary ; Leiceister-street to be nearly completed, and other streets improved, complete drainage, and a site for water supply purchased, also site for reservoir near the town. Now, with the Mayor’s clever gift of speech, he painted such a beautiful town, and all .to be had for their consent to borrow £SOOO ; 'that allowing no time for sober thought, but insisting on the vote there and then, the scheme, the whole scheme, and nothing if not the whole scheme, he carried the vote ; but every Councillor was under the impression that when -Engineer’s estimates were prepared they would be submitted ; for further consideration. Now, to ; shew that no factious opposition exists to improvements on the part of the Council, whether proposed by Mayor or not, it was resolved unanimously on the 9th January last, “ that the levels of Bedfordstreet be the first duty of the Engineer, and that-tenders be called for the’ work.” This was done so that there might be no delay in having the most urgent work immediately undertaken. There was no necessity to wait for the passing of the loan before commencing.

No w five months have elapsed, and that iesolution of the Council is treated with contempt by the Mayor because it might interfere with the “ whole scheme.”, Had We had tenders called for Bedford-street, we should have known what further sura was available for further urgent improvements ; and it might have been found that to do the <! whole scheme ” £7OOO and not £SOOO would be nearer the sum ; and the Mayor’s cherished scheme of main drain to the sea and drive and avenue to the Heads would have been struck out for more sober and useful expenditure. The scheme as put before the ratepayers is not as proposed to the Council. It has been as much cut down that the ratepayers will find the results of the expenditure to be below what the Mayor’s glamorous speech would lead them to believe they will get. The. result will be : Bedford street unfinished, and the top of the MU as far as Victoria street drained ; not one single low-lying place that needs drainage touched. By throwing out the scheme, the ratepayers will have Bedfordstreet completed according to a resolution which pledges the whole Council to that work, and which work has been hung up for the last four months jby his Worship, so that he could bring it forward at a public meeting as his scheme, but without which he could not hope to carry the rest of it. He is welcome to all the honor of the thing, but the truth should be plainly stated that Councillors are unanimously in favor of forming and completing Bed-ford-street, but are not unanimous and have never given their concept knowingly to the rest of the scheme. And the ratepayers should not force them to a waste of public money, or compel them to expend on the uninhabited |waste between the Cricket Ground and the Heads a sum of £I2OO, as is proposed to be expended, vis., £SOO formation and £7OO drain ; when those parts which have paid rates for years, and where the money could be well laid out, must go without anything but paying the taxes. Let not the ratepayers be led away with the idea that if this scheme is not accepted no improvement will take place and no money be borrowed. The whole of the Councillors are in favor of improving their town, aud of spending borrowed money ; and speaking for myself, I look upon £SOOO as a small sum, and am prepared to go beyond it, so long as, after fair consideration, the Council agree that the money is laid out to the best advantage of the ratepayers and town. John Gibson.

POINTS OP LAW AND OP PACT- : Questions of legality are now being raised by the opposing party of the Borough loan and the scheme in general. Mr Dale, in a public letter of the BOth, considers the scheme of improvement as set forth in their present form to be impracticable. He first deals with the illegality or irregularity in the mode of procedure. I have examined the Act thoroughly, and followed him point by by point; but not one of his legal points is worth serious therefore I will not trouble you with any citations from the Act. . .

Mr Dale argues too that the improvement to, Bedford-street, according to present plan, would not present a better appearance. I cannot see how such an argument can hold good. We now have the main artery of'the town about wide enough for a kangaroo to hop across. Surely a street 66 feet wide would present a better appearance ; : say nothing of acci*

dents averted. The late upsetting of the coach is sufficient argument 'for widening of the street.

The question of iron pipes, as proposed by Mr Dale, according to my calculation would amount to the neat little sum of £1,114 alone ; that is allowing we use 10inch pipes for 60 chains, 40 of which would be from crown of Bedford street to Bridge, and 20 chains from Bedford street to Cattle Wharf, the last distance being appproximato only. This will at once show that the street could hot be made with side-walks and gutters for anything like the sum set forth in the schedule of cost prepared by the Engineer ; and to prepare another scheme and another plan with different grades would not only entail a great loss of time, but would in all probability hang up the present scheme and the new one indefinitely, as the pre l sent one would be called impracticable) and the second one too expensive.

If such enlightened views have been held by Councilmen, why did they • not introduce a resolution asking for a modification of the present plans, or the preparation of plana with different gradesj and go into the difference of costs between the two ? Surely they had ample opportunity to examine the plans individually or as a council, as I know the plans were to be seen weeks ago. No ; everything seems to be left to the hope of upsetting, the whole affair as illegal when brought before the public. Surely no Councillor! can argue that the gag-law has been in force in Council matters, and that they were not allowed to propose a resolution ! And if a resolution had been proposed for adoption of. the Engineer’s report, and lost, I see no legal reason why the Mayor could not still have brought his; scheme before the public ; and if accepted by the ratepayers, the thing would amount to “no confidence,” and the course then to pursue by the defeated Councillors would be to resign or accept the decision of the ratepayers. Since Mr Dale argues that the cost of scheme No. 2 will not reach the one proposed, would it. not be quite competent for the Council to so alter or modify their plans, if found practicable, and call for alternative tenders for the works? For although £2OOO may be borrowed for the improvement of any particular street, it does not follow' that £2OOO must be expended in strict conformity with the proposed plan (Section 146—Municipal Corporations Act). A dozen different plans may be prepared, and one adopted by the Council w'hich they consider best (provided the cost of execution does not exceed the amount borrowed for the improvement of that particular street.) I consider no time should be lost by the Council in fixing definite levels, as 'section 196 of the Act referred to positively holds the Council responsible to any ratepayer who builds or otherwise improves his property, and who afterwards ; is/affected by any alteration of grades, &c.; by the Council, if the levels are not established within the prescribed time (two months).

The Patea bridge and borough patients, referred to by Mr Dale, are pretty far fetched. I should imagine that the bridge with ordinary maintenance, is good forlo or 15 years. And as it is a direct road to the railway station, np doubt Government will assist us : to erect another when this one collapses. . Our town is tolerably healthy, and with the proposed drainage scheme before us we shall have little to fear by way of extra rates for maintenance of sick and infirm. ,

In conclusion I may safely state that if we wait to accept a perfect scheme that is to suit the inclinations of all parties, we shall wait until doomsday. . Many object to the present scheme simply because it is not brought forward by what they call theirparty. Someobjecton selfish grounds. Some honestly, I’ve ho doubt. However, all can agree that Bedford-street ought to be the main entrance to the town, and that it needs improving to add to the appearance of the town, to improve property, to avoid accidents, and conduce 1 to the general good of the public ; and I have little doubt that next Tuesday will show this is general public opinion. F. G. Mace.