PROPOSED CLOSING OF THE RIVER ROAD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5598, 3 February 1879, Page 7

PROPOSED CLOSING OF THE RIVER ROAD.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DTTTELTON TIMES. Sin, —I must again crave a little of your space in order to reply to Mr Elesher’s letter in this morning’s issue. Mr Flesher is very much mistaken if he supposes that I should have wished for any “special pleading” on the part of the Chairman ; it would undoubtedly have been wrong. He will hardly deny, however, that it was the duty of the Chairman to place the business on hand clearly and correctly before the meeting, In this Mr Wilson —according at least to your report—decidedly failed ; at which I am the more surprised, as I have heard him, on another occasion, conduct a public meeting in a most able manner.

In reply to my remarks on liis own share in the late meeting, Mr Flesher manages to misquote me twice, and then diverges—not very neatly—into matter foreign to the discussion, whither I do not mean to follow him. He reports my so-called “castigation” of him for “nonsense and ignorance.” I said “ ignorance of the question,” and I need hardly point out that there is a vast difference between “ignorance” per se, and “ignorance of a question.” I have not accused Mr Flesher of being an “ignorant man.” He imputes to me the same “ qualities,” nonsense and ignorance, in “ supposing that any one would recommend the purchase of one of his (my) sections in order to hand-it over to the City Council”,Flesher.vrilL reperuse my letter he that I jmade no reference#© •“ tny y' L simply rquoted his wdrds'as reported, I. said I did pot know, neither, I thought, did . he, what City Council land the BoatGlubs ffere to get ; in exchange for the section he proposed they: should buy; He now explains-—“The.lend on ; which the sheds now stand and still proposes that the matter should be arranged) by the “ parties interested.” | Mr Flesher appears to . ignore the foot that | the land on which the {sheds now stand does} not belong to the City. Council. They standi upon one of the. 25-root river, reserves—-the “ people’s land.” that the! champion of, the “ peoples " rights,” who! stands up so uncomprohiisingly for the “river road reserves” on the north bank should, at the same time, coolly propose the alienation of a similar reserve on the south

bank.;; for the goose is not sauoe>for the gander.'* Perhaps we can understand this'when we call to mind that Mr Flesher yw to stand or. fall by the votes of the Aron ratepayers the' day after the meeting. In his concluding paragraph abbut ’ 1 recreation grounds,” “river road reserves” : ,&0., one would suppose that some considerable atea —acres at least —was in question. . The fact is that the piece of land under discussion is only some five chains in length, by 25 feet in width—about quarter of an’ acre. I shall now take leave of the subject, with thanks for the space you have accorded me.— 1 am, &0., :: •• .■ • <9 MICHAEL 8. CAMPBELL: Jan. 81,1879.