CORRESPONDENCE. FAIR PLAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11696, 30 September 1902, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

FAIR PLAY.

TO THB KDXTOB.

Sir, —So yon " insist that Mr Rogers shall get a fair field and no favor." You will not find the task difficult, as the Council have already instructed Mr Rogers to report en Mr Anderson's scheme, and have decided to refer the whole matter to the umpire. They are indifferent as to who this is so long as he. is competent. And you say that neither, the Tramways Committee nor the Council have given the city engineer proper consideration. Well, it is a pity you do not get your facts from the proper quarter. Mr Rogers was given a free hand, and was nine months on his scheme, and when it came before us wc referred it to another engineer before committing the ratepayers to such a heavy expenditure. Mr Rogers agreed to this. I will now carry the war into your own camp. First, you said the Council suppressed the city engineer's report on public works, when they did not; and secondly, you published it without the authority of Mr Rogers or the Council or before it could be received by the Council—in fact, it was never received. Further, you raised a hue and cry that the Council were adopting a Star Chamber sort of practice with Mr Anderson's report, when they were only anxious to protect Mr Rogers and the other professional gentlemen by first discussing it in crmera and then doing what the Tramways Committee ultimately did—viz., to strike out all personalities and other matters which had no bearing on the order of reference and discuss the remainder in open Council. But you would have the whole report, and you created nothing but mischief. Because I reject Mr Rogers's scheme until further inquiry is made is no reason why i should adopt ydur suggestion and move that his services be dispensed with. I should require the most complete evidence of incompetency before adopting such a reckless course. In other words, I believe in fair play .--I am, etc., A G'Or/NCILLOB. September 30. [lf we did not believe implicitly in the sincerity of " A Councillor " we should wish for nothing better than that he should keep on making use of our columns, for assuredly he gives himself away badly each time he writes. And if we give him rope enough it is only a question of time when he will commit self-destruction municipally. Yesterday we accused him of disingenuousness; to-day we charge him with perversity, and with distorting facts. But before we deal with " A Councillor's " facts we venture to ask whether the Council have yet chosen an BNGiNEim of such eminence in his profession that the latter and the ratepayers at large will accept as final and conclusive any decision he may give on the matters in is«ue between Messrs Rogers and Anderson. For our part we think not. Now to deal with this doughty councillor's "facts." If Mr Rogers's reply to the animadversions of Cr Lawrence was not received by the Council, it surely was not our fault. It was addressed to the mayor and City Council in the ordinary way, and should have been read at the Council table, and not having been so read it was either rejected or suppressed. "A Councillor" can have his choice of the horns of his dilemma, for assuredly Mr Rogers declared at the time, and persists m asseverating, that he never withdrew the document. If the Council's action on that matter and in permitting Mr Anderson to copyright a report—for the preparation of which the ratepayers employed and paid him—which was intended to be kept a profound secret does not partake of Star Chamber methods of conducting busi- - ness, we are utterly at a loss to adequately characterise it. And we rather take credit to ourselves for having assisted to prick that wretched bladder. The expurgated edition' of that report does tot add to the lustre of the Tramways Committee, who let it go before the Council still bristling with personalities. We were not aware till "A Councillor" so informed us that we had published the whole report. We published as much of it as (in the absence-of any direction to avoid personalities or libellous matter) we deemed it to be the in'tS v f tho rat epayers that the public should be acquainted with; and it is the fault of the Tramways Committee if we I- 8 ? « oing ' " created nothing but mis' Chief. But we fancy that the mischief was originated wheu the Tramways Committee permitted Mr Anderson, under cover of • privilege" that he did not enjov; to adopt a course that is without precedent, and wruch we hope never to see again tolerated bv any public body. We have not heard the last of the "mischief"-not by any ffifa „s —or that most improper proceeding.—Ed.