ASPHALT V. CONCRETE.

Taihape Daily Times, 22 August 1919, Page 4

ASPHALT V. CONCRETE.

A public man cannot be too par-ticu— I lar about his facts; this is emphasised in a letter from Mr A_ L. Arrowsmith, ex-Mayor, in our correspondence columns of yestcrday’s issue. Mr Arrowsmith points out only one of the several errors made by Mr Joblin, and that one was of very little importance as comparedwith others. In these columns we stated that ratepayers had an opportunity to discuss the respective merits of asphalt and concrete slab footpaths at the statutory meeting held to -consider the loan proposal ‘ submitted. Mr Joblin in a letter,‘ which was supposed to be a reply to our editorial, said the respective merits of the two materials were not discussed. On that point Mr Arrowsmith has put his successor right, but why,. when he had pen in hand, Mr Arrow-1 smith did not go further and make} Mr Joblin aware’ of the dangerous! blunders he seemed bent on persistingl in with respect to the nature of the; poll and the limitations it enforces up- i on the Council that is to spend the money, we do not know. Perhaps it was because the ex-Mayor wished to avoid being accused of interference with the acts of his successor any fur’ther than to put right a question of rfact. We cannot, however, be govern’ed by any such little matters of etiqulette, or delicate amenity. Our advertising columns announce that a Referendum of Ratepayers will be taken on the 28th of this month, in less than a week from today. This referendum is being taken on the assumption that upwards of £I2OO will be saved in sublstituting asphalt for concrete, and 'lthat. this money so, saved can be used for extending footpaths beyond the area spccifiedtin which the £17,000 is to be spent, which is altogether wrong and contrary’ to law. Should ratepayers vote for asphalt in the hope of getting footpaths "beyond the area ‘specified they will have a rude awaklcning. When we pointed out that it '-was unlawful to change concrete for ‘asphalt, we took it for granted that no similar blunders would be made in other ways and connections. By advcl‘tisenlent ratepayers are asked to vote upon the asphalt-concrete quesltion, but does not the ‘Mayor realise that the law no more permits him to change the area .limitations of the loan than it does the nature of the lmaterial provided for in the proposals iupon which the poll was taken? When ;this referendum is taken, if the Mayor fn:eang what he says about extending !the making of footpaths outside the adopted area, he will have to take another referendum to secure sanction for another addition to the WashinglUp Bill. But will not Parliament belgin to wonder what sort of people we 'arc in Taihapc; they will say that no sooner do We decide to raise a loan ‘for certain plll‘pOSes than we want to iehange the nature of materials, later, lthe area in which the money is to be Silent,‘ and they will naturally doubt ‘whether these two changes would not {involve us in the desire for some other lamendment of the proposals that were ]oV@l‘Whellllill{;ly adopted at the statultory poll_ We have drawn attention to this aspect bearing upon the forth|coming referendum, as every ratepaylcr is entitled to know how matters |connected therewith stand. The statelment. that money saved from adopting ‘asphalt can be spent in extending lfootpflths outside or beyond the pre‘scribed streets is wrong‘. The area. can no, more lawfully be interfered with than the materi'al. Loan proposals once carried at a legal DOll 01111not lawfully be tinkered with in any , way. -