MR SANDILANDS IN REPLY.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 264, 11 May 1895, Page 2

MR SANDILANDS IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,-Mr Maclean's letter of this evening 1 calls for but few ren.arks from me ; finding himself cornered he now treats the matter as a joke, still admitting, however, that there is an obstacle; that obstacle, to my mind, is how to build in the Square without borrowing" and striking 1 a rate. I I have also a few words to say with regard to Mr Giesen's letter. Sir, I challenge Mr Giesen to pro-luce any document which can or will prove that the roads referred :o have not, beon dedicated to the public. I reiterate that 1 can prove my assertion as to the dedication of those particular roads bj r puhlic not private documents, and at the proper time such proof will be given. Independent of this, however, I would point, out, that the iormer manager of the Corporation (tho late .Mr Macarthiir) when Mayor drew or assisted in drawing 1 up the scheme for the making and altering of roads, and the construction of other works, in the Borough, nnd upon which the sum of £GOOO was raised and spent. In the schedule of wurks upon which the poll for the £0000 loan was taken Kimbolton road crime in for a large share of expenditure of ratepayers'money ; the formation of this road was widened ond metalled, and the lar^e watercourse filled in through and beyond the Square for some distance on either side, and in that same schedule provision was made for tne roads mnning round tho Square, and these roads were also formed and metalled out of that same loan money. Bearing ti is in mind, sir, would it not appear to any reason able person (other than tho Corporation Oracle) strange, to say the least of it, if the Square or roads, or any portion thereof, could bo considered private property ? Yet if they are not private property they innst be public property, and if they are public property then there must have been a dedication. I was very pleased to see that Dr Moncktou took a common sense view of the matter. As Mr Justice Richmond once remarked — " What is CJinnion sense is usually common law." When it was suggested by Mr Giesen that the Council should ask the Corporation to transfer Manchester Square my reply was that such v course was quite unnecessary, seeing that it had already been dedicated to the public, and I scouted the idea of admitting that the Corporation had any title to it, and I think the late Mayor (Mr Carthew) will bear me out in this. Mr Giesen, after having in his letter of the 4th instant been particularly careful to point out the power of the Council to divert roads, now turns round and says he neither wishes to divert nor block them. He now wishes to reduce the width, which I take it to be equally as serious a matter. I am, at present, unaware of any Act which would empower the Council to reduce the width of a road. In conclusion, I may say that in face of the almost unanimous objection of the ratepayers as expressed at a public meeting on a former occasion to permit the Council to divert Kimbolton road and Manchester street, the Council was perfectly justified in the action it has taken in the matter of the site. I am, etc., W. A, Handilands. Feilding, 9th May, 1895. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir, —Your correspondent, Mr W. Reid, is somewhat in error in his facts. Mr Reid, at the public meeting, asked me whether a sum of i.12 had not been paid for drawing the plans submitted to the meeting. I replied that I believed such sum had been paid. No offer was made by the Town Clerk, Mr Hill, to do the work for any specified sum, nor did he draw plans, and he informs me had he been employed he would have charged the usual percentage. Mr James will only be paid the usual percentage chargeable by architects. I am, etc, W. A. Sandilands.