VICTORIA HEIGHTS DRAINAGE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 16 April 1928, Page 2

VICTORIA HEIGHTS DRAINAGE

COUNCILLOR NEALE ACCEPTS MR BURT'S CHALLENGE

(To the Editor) Kir, —On Jii.-i own hcJil:J.:.->io:; in the (concluding sentence of his letter in your iwsue of J'Yiday, -this .matter .is -no concern of Mr Burt's, 1 'have no inlention of entering into •:• newspaper controversy with him on the subject nor of withdruwin.ii the statement f innde in Council: much less do I «uliiiit .Mr Hurt's right to adopt s,. dictatorial an attitude. He however, after adopting a very patronising and superior attitude, made n direct challenge tn me mid. alheii in n roundabout v.iiv, questioned my veracity. lie challenged me to produce any conncil resolution showing that the Council itself knew what it intended to do with regard to this drain prior to De ceinber last when the lirsl permits to c-oti(t«-«-t were applied for. My reply is that the Council decided on I .'{til April, 1!>27. «- 3l; 111 months previously, what it. proposed to do. Some time previously a tiomewliat similar case had arisen, in which tlie Council offered to lay the drain required. provided the owners paid half the cost,. The proposal was accepted, the work done and 1 1n- half cost duly paid, incidentally by one of the persons who is also concerned in the present case. The TJonnci] (ben decided on the date above mentioned on the motion of Councillor Hurley and seconded .by Councillor Mofl'ntt "that the principle adopted in *s case he observed with regard to Queen's road." which is the particular drain now under discussion. This is a complete answer to Mr Burt's challenge. As till members of the Council know and as many of the public have probably surmised there is a great deal more behind this matter than has appeared on the surface and had Councillor TTarley'a remarks at the last Council meeting been reported it would have thrown a great deal more light on the subject. The views 1 expressed are .substantially shared by several other councillors who have spoken on the matter previously and in committee. My reasons for voting against the motion to rescind the previous resolution, concerning which action Mr Bnrt is so sarcastic, are simply that, strange as it, may seem to him with that ">0 or 00 years' legal experience of his. T am not satisfied although T said thai on legal and technical grounds the Council would "apparent-

ly" have to give way, that the decision would necessarily have gone against the Council bad the matter been taken to Court, and 1 also wished to make a protest against the action of some of the people concerned in the matter. My voting against the motion therefore/

despite Mr Burt's sarcasm, was quite logical. Nothing that Mr Burt has said alters my opinion expressed nl the Council meeting and it. may also interest tinratepayers to know that the Health Officer'(Dr. Mercer I when the full position was disclosed to him, considered T understand, that the Council's offer was a perfectly fair and reasonable one. 1 am, <^tr..

E. B. NT, ALE

Nelson. 10th April.