THE SQUARE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19376, 31 July 1928, Page 6

THE SQUARE.

STATEMENT BY MAYOR.

REPLY TO CRITICISMS. J . As promised on Saturday, the Mayor (Mr J K. Archer) gov.3 The Press last night a statement for publication relating to the controversy that has arisen in connexion with the decision of the City Council to go on with the scheme for the ''improvement" of Cathedral square. The Mayor's statement is as follows: "The attempt of many speakers and writers to make it appear that the Cathedral square problem is mine only, or even mainly, would be ridiculous if it were not worse. I do not wish to shirk my share of responsibility, because when a fight for the people is on I like to be in it and in the thick of it. To suggest, however, that this is my enterprise is false to historical fact and an insult to our City councillors. History of the Case. "Here is the history of the case. There have been conveniences iii the Square for several decades. The proposal to improve the conveniences is by no means new. As far back as 1924 the Works Committee of the Council (which was, of course, a different Council from the present one) recommended that uesigns be invited for improving the Cathedral square shelter and conveniences. During the same year the question was referred to a special committee of which the Mayor of the period, Mr J. A. Flesher (who is now posing as an oppponent of the scheme), was a member. By this committee a scheme was devised which was submitted to the Tramway Board, the Beautifying Association, and Mr Hurst Seager, all of whom approved of it. When the scheme was submitted to the Council for confirmation, Mr Flesherj as Mayor, and | all the councillors, except Councillors Cooke and Sim, voted for it. The .whole of the local newspapers expressed their approval of it. Mr George Gould, tho convener and chairman of Friday's meeting, also approved of it. The only opponents were the members of the Trades and Labour Council, and they merely opposed the part of the scheme referring to the erection of a War Memorial in the Square. Arrangements were made for financing the scheme without ever submitting it to the ratepayers, or citizens generally. That is the history, and by some magic process some of the approvers of the past are disapproves in the present. As far as the present Council is concerned, at our meeting hold a week to-night, only oiio councillor voted against carryingout the scheme;'four out of the five representatives of the Citizens' Association either voted for it or did not vote at all. Resolution of Friday's Meeting. "The resolution passed at the meeting on Friday afternoon is intentionally, or unintentionally, misleading. It professes, to protest against the erection of conveniences on the Godley site; whereas the framers of it must know that at the present moment there are no conveniences on that site and the new scheme does not suggest placing conveniences on that site. As far as conveniences are concerned the site will be left exactly as is> is to-day. Moreover, the problem before the public is not that of the erection of conveniences in the Square as _ a new enterprise, or that of the abolition of the present conveniences, but. the simple question as to whether the present conveniences shall be retained in their inadequate and disgraceful condition, or be improved. No speaker at the meeting, except ■Mr John Anderson, suggested their abolition, and that is not the question in dispute. "Political Partisanship." "As regards the large number of letters received by Mr Gould and reported in the newspapers, I can only say that for the writers of some of them I have the greatest sympathy and would be exceedingly sorry to hurt their feelings by the adoption of this plan, or any other. On the whole, however, the names of the letterwriters do not impress me. The only quotation from a letter received by Mr Gould and, judging by the newspaper reports, read to the meeting, does impress me, but very unfavourably. It is the letter from Mr W. J. Sim, the president of the Citizens' Association. Anybody reading its closing sentences can come to no other conclusion ' than that it is _ purely and simply a piece of political partisanship and propaganda. It does not con'tain a line of citizenship or statesmanship. So far as I am concerned it only encourages me to fight. Questions for Mr Gould.

"Coming to the speakers and speeches at Friday's meeting, I would like to ask Mr George Gould, the chairman and convener, two simple questions:—Why did he, in 1926, approve of the present plan for improved and enlarged conveniences in the Square? Further, wh v did he not report to the meeting, as he has asserted during the last few weeks, that he has no objection to convenience.! in the Square providing they are all placed underground? Personally, I would appreciate complete frankness on his part.

Mr George Harper's Historical Review. "Mr George Harper, whom we all honour, and would never imagine to be imbued with political or Party spirit when handling a question of this kind, gave a very interesting historical review, but it leads us nownere. The legal points which he raised can be settled by the .'egal authorities, but, as far as they are concerned, we have secured the best legal opinion that New Zealand can give, and it justifies the adoption of the proposal under discussion. More than one generation ago the Christchurch public showed by their conduct that they have abandoned the idea that the Square can be permanently used 'as public gardens and promenades.' Mr Harper knows quite well that no past Parliament can impose its will upon the citizens of the present. The history of Christchurch proves beyond all dispute that many ot the original ideas of our first citizens have had to be modified during subsequent years. This, of course, was bound to be the case, because no generation. however wise and good, can foresee the development of future days. Original Plans Departed Prom.

"On this point a few words may be quoted from Sir Henry Wigram's story of Christchurch. He says: 'Like many of the Canterbury Association's plans the reality has. moved on very different lines from those As a matter of fact, the changes are legion. Originally it was decided that the city of Christchurch should only cover one thousand acres, with another thousand as suburbs. What does it cover now ? It was decided that each section in the City should be"a quar-ter-acre, and each section in the suburbs ten acres. What are they now? It was decided that toe price of sections in the City should be £25 and in the suburbs £l5O. What are the prices now? At first there were to be no streets in the Square;- now there are two thoroughfares Originally nobody could he a landowner in the City except he were a member of the Church of England. Now we have owners of all denominations and no denomination. Parts of the Square have been bought and sold several times over. Half of it was once sold to the Government for £I2OO. In the beginning it was intended to have a