THE RIGHTS OF A COUNCILLOR.

Evening Star, Issue 11695, 29 September 1902, Page 8

THE RIGHTS OF A COUNCILLOR.

TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —To copy your tactics, I would say that “ you posed as an engineer ” when you criticised Mr Anderson on the turbine v. Pelton wheel; but this is abuse, and not argument. Your article stated that both engineers doubted the quantity of water from the Lee. I proved that tiey contradicted you on the point. As to “ submitting Mr Rogers’s scheme to a higher authority,” you again suggest what tjic Council have already decided. Moreover, that the Council have instructed Mr Rogers to criticise Mr Anderson’s report should make yon drop the cry that he is unfairly treated. And you write as if it were a crime to be cautions. What if wo had adopted Mr Rogers’s scheme, and it had cost three times more than the estimate? We might blame the engineer, but what about the pockets of the ratepayers? The Corporation are like a big company : the ratepayers are the shareholders, the engineer is the manager (of his department), and the councillors are the directors. If anything goes wrong the councillors are as responsible as the engineer. My *• strongly defined views ” arc that I decline to occupy tjie comfortable position of a. dummy, and that I claim the right to scrutinise every proposal that vitally affects the ratepayers, and to straightforwardly express my opinion thereon. It is clap-trap to say that I am no engineer, and that this is an engineering question. It is largely a financial question. But what about the Silverstream and the gold dredging ' fiascos ? Both had the highest engineering assistance—well, laymen could not have done worse. After all, we are only dealing with an open water race, in the construction of which any ordinary gold digger could teach us a lesion. —I am, etc., A CorjscauLOß. •’ September 29. [“ A Councillor" _ iias evidently been touched on the raw, and therefore squirms. He is disingenuous, and worse—for he persists in twisting our words. We said that the Council must choose an engineer of much higher standing in his profession than any of the gentlemen they have yet selected before they can with safety ’reject Mr Rogers’s scheme, and we repeat that the ratepayers will yet demand that that shall be done. And we take leave to say that the Tramways Committee, or the Council, or both for that matter, did not at the outset give the city engineer the consideration due to an official whose professional reputation is at stake. We did not approve of Mr Rogers’s appointment, and were not afraid to tell the Council that they had blundered, but when the appointment was confirmed we counselled that he should receive loyal support from the whole Council, and not be hindered or obstructed in any way. All that we have asked for him is a fair field and no favor, and we axe determined to insist on him getting that. When “ A Councillor ” feels himself in a position to prove that the city engineer is incompetent. he should have , the. courage of his convictions, and move to determine Mr Rogers’s engagement, which would be a manly and . straightforward course on the part of those councillors who apparently have ceased to have faith in his ability to carry out his projected Lee Stream scheme —Ed. E.S.]