The Press Monday, May 20, 1929. The Square.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19623, 20 May 1929, Page 8

The Press Monday, May 20, 1929. The Square.

In Friday's papers there was published a statement by Mr George Gould reporting the decision of the " Save the " Square" Committee respecting the situation made by the Supreme Court judgment about the Square. The tone of this statement was conciliatory—many people will have thought it too conciliatory—but it was as firm, as to fundamentals, as anything conciliatory can be. The essence of it was a civil invitation to the City Council and the Tramway Board to consider the position and make some suggestion for dealing with it. On the following day the Mayor, mistaking civility for weakness, aa some people do, made a statement in which he said, in effect, that the " Bave the Square" Committee is afraid of its success in the Court. He went on to say some unwise things " as •'to whether the City of Christchurch "is prepared to let Mr Gould and his

" committee dictate to the citizens as a " whole." He himself was " emphatic- " ally of the opinion that the City " cannot permit any one man or group "of individuals to dictate its policy. " In regard to the Square, as in regard " to everything else, it must have selfgovernment." Mr Gould's reply to this, printed to-day, is brief and sharp. Civility and olive-branches being things that are thrown away on the Mayor, it is a case for " plain English," and the plain English is that "if the City " Council does not shortly take steps " to cease its abuse of a trusteeship, " the order of the Supreme Court will " be enforced."

In the sentence just quoted Mr I Gould touches the central fact: —that the City Council has, perhaps unwittingly, abused its trust for many years, and is now, so long as it permits the present conditions in the Square to continue, abusing its trust consciously every day. The Mayor is naturally bewildered and a little upset, but as an experienced politician he ought not to allow his feelings to lead him into saying things which are childish and fretful. The only "one man" who "dictated" the "policy" of the City in this matter was Mr Justice Herdman, and he did so as the interpreter of the law. If the Mayor wishes to quarrel with anyone, he ought to quarrel with the law and the Court But however he pitches his quarrels, he should remember that he is the very last person who ought at this time to be talking of the right of the City to 11 Belf-government." He was challenged, he was implored, to allow the City to say what it thought of his proposal to raise money to make permanent, at a heavy coat, the nasty trespass upon the Square. He refused to let the citizens express their opinions. He and his colleagues used np all their resources of ingenuity in their endeavour to foist their " Improvement" scheme on the citizens without giving the City an opportunity to exercise its right of " self-government.',' One may —and most people do—dielike the dictator who says "Damn the citi"mml" and abides by his word, but at least one e*n admire his courage and consistency. But the defeated dictator who whimpers for the democratic right of self-government is clearly, in the football idiom, very much "off-side."