COUNCILLOR BARBER AND KENT TERRACE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5558, 8 April 1905, Page 9

COUNCILLOR BARBER AND KENT TERRACE.

(To the Editor “N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —I have to thank Mr B. Dawson for his letter on the above subject. His proverbs’ and interpretation clauses only confirm my contention, that extravagance, and not economy, is: the rule of the City Council—to quote Hr Dawson’s words: “Councillor Barber has given notice to move that, in view of the Electrical Engineer having : recommended that tho tram line in Kent terrace be diverted io Cambridge terrace,’’ etc. He then says; , “Assuming the engineer’s recommendation to be justified, .and justification of the same has not been negatived/' etc. In face of the above facts, what does Mr Lawson.wish your readers to understand? Does Mr Barber approve or .disapprove of the engineer’s recommendation? It appears to mo from the words, “and justification of the same has not been negatived,” that Mr Barber, at all events, endorses the view of the engineer. Now where was, tho engineer when the scheme was proposed, and, again, where was tho Council, Mr Barber included? My charge against, tho Council was, and. is, that of continued waste, extravagance and blundering. I only wish, for tho sake of suffering ratepayers, that I had reason to think otherwise. Mr Dtwson says: "Councillor Barber moved tor tho appointment of a committee to ascertain the reasons of the tram being altered to Kent terrace, but was unable to get his motion carried.” A more serious charge than the above conld not he levelled against a public body than that, in a secret star chamber fashion, it should waste the ratepayers* money in such a way as to make it necessary to undo the work already done, and do it over again as first intended. In such a case there were two courses ■>pon to Councillor ■ Barber, viz., to region, or call a public meeting, either of which would have earned the gratitude of the ratepayers.—l am, etc., a *1 eii. F. LOUDON. . April sth.