N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1889.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 897, 10 May 1889, Page 16

N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1889.

the £75,000 LOAN.

In another column of this issue Mr Kennedy Macdonald comments on the new loan

proposals of the City Council. Mr Macdonald takes exception to the suggestion that those who oppose the 1 can scheme should indicate some feasible alternative. He denies that this can fairly be asked of the schema’s opponents any more than of a Parliamentary Opposition. But if this be granted ; what then ? We fully agree that no absolute responsibility rests on them. They are perfectly within their rights in simply opposing the seiieme without indicating any alternative. Nobody can possibly question that. But what , follows? This: That if t&o gpfcfepe "j be rejected by the ?nte payers, the city vdlV baye without the very desirable works for which the proposed 1 >an would be applied, because, as the present scheme is put forward by the majority of the Council as the best that they can devise, it fis utterly un- i likely that they w.li deem ihe nisei ves called upon to produce an •■ther y scheme, < dr 1 a series cf P. rc *- ;posal»,' or -that vhey 'fytjl aocept pro- j ; poqala'of u'n oppvsite 'ehh-rih'i er brought |up by the minority of the Council. • 1 There'’ is therefore a double danger. Either the scheme may be negatived i by the ratepayers and-the city left | without these needful improvements, j *or else the r.itApay ers. in the absence of any !<a- ,, ble nltern&iiye : ! proposals, uv>y' c.u'yy •sy.b.epio ' ; although,' ftqc-h RQ alt.erna*ivo offereii, they iqight reject the scheme in order to enable, thu alternative to be substituted, and if the latter were really an improvement -'o have too much confidence in the g >o.l sense of the Mayor and Council to btdiev6 for a moment that they would hesitate'to ; iaccept it’out of mere pique at their j original plan 'being negatived. But as / •yet no'such alternative m prcipgiiitded or even l ( iinte’d. find thei'blo.yo The ICopnpil’-a scheuite is the best at ■present before the public. have already expressed ohr doubt as to the p.ractioablenesa of any such :alternative plan being devised, but. we -are entirely open to conviction if are wrong in this opinion. Wb invite ;Mr Macdonald, or those who agree with him) to say what. Ac£pysiiig to I their views, b© defne instead of is proposed by the Couhcil. :If this were d6ne tlie public would i have befdre therb a chdice of ‘alternatives. Ae it 'is thby have only *1 Hobson’s' choice,’\V tt Js Council’s ischeme' or.' none? Jjf the ratepayers | vote against it they hi\'v,eup security lor ass prance yfliateyey thftt a better one will fee fqrtheQOfdoijf io its In these oiroumstanoeg we hot see I what tw * an reaaonab ly do bat vote ior the only plan offered, a plan approved, moreover, by the majority o their representatives ilj Council. / * ‘ 'L._