CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 246, 23 October 1897, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

SALE OF ALBERT PARK,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In the report of the Council proceedings in your issue of yesterday I observe that Councillor Kidd, in speaking on the above subject, has referred to me and my action on the deputation in a way that is quite unwarranted. It is the more necessary that he should be replied to as he gives undue prominence to what was a mere side issxie, while ignoring the essential features of the question.

In that report he is made to say, after referring to the statement of Mr Upton as to the rights of the City Council to the present site of the Police Barracks. 'And Mr Peacock another member of the deputation, supported this contention.' Further, on speaking of the Act which gave the Government the right to the site, he adds, 'And this Act came into force during the Mayoralty of Mr Peacock himself, yet the latter argued that by this exchange the Council were getting a site which already was practically their own.' Now, unfortunately for Councillor Kidd and the point he would like to score, it lacks the basis of truth. I spoke before Mr Upton did. I made no reference whatever to the present site of the Barracks, and any explanatory remarks made afterwards by me only touched the main question ? And what is the main question ? Is it not this: Whether the Councillors, who are trustees for the present and future generations of citizens, should begin to dispose of any portions of our reserves, even if it could be shown to be a good bargain from a monetary point of view ? I feel sure the citizens would resent such action.

One remark more about Councillor Kidd's speech. He says later on "The deputation also drew a red herring across the scent in saying they were giving up a site of three acres.' Now, the area within the fences is nearly one acre and a-half, and if we take into account the fact that the road now going through the park is part of the Park, and would cease to be so if this exchange were effected, and add the area of it to the other we would have well on to three acres.

Of course I know that Councillor Kidd would deny that the road would be taken, as I was surprised to hear him do in the Council while the deputation were there, and that, too, after the Acting-Clerk had read aloud (at the Mayor's request) the minute containing the arrangement with the Government. For, if my ears did not deceive me, it is expressly stipulated in that bargain that the road was to be dedicated as a public road. But, sir, what does it matter whether there is half an acre more or less in the part proposed to be sold. It is the principle of the thing that should be looked to, and the Council will act wisely in being guided by it.—l am, etc., Thomas Peacock.