THE PROTESTS OF THE EXMAYORS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18354, 27 August 1929, Page 7

THE PROTESTS OF THE EXMAYORS.

To the Editor of the ‘‘Timaru Herald.” Sir, —As a citizen of Timaru. taking, I hope, an intelligent interest in the course of events and local movements, I have followed with interest the controversy which has been in progress aor some time concerning the erection of long-wanted public conveniences in the Borough. It has always been a matter of astonishment to me that the Health Department has not long ago insisted on something being done. Today Timaru is in this respect in a worse position than any town of the same size in the Dominion. The blame lies with the civic authorities. I have been astounded that Council after Council has limited its efforts to froth and bubble—to mere talk—and now that we have a Council which is prepared to do its duty, and which has chosen an ideal site, we have the ludicrous spectacle of a deputation of ex-Mayors—every one of which shirked his obvious duty when he was in a position to do something —waiting on the Council to protest against the new Council undertaking work which they themselves should have done. They limited their labours to futile talk, the present Council proposes to do its duty. There is a wide difference, which, I am sure, the people will appreciate. The whole manoeuvre seems to me to be nothing less than sheer effrontery. I think it is presumption, even for a band of ex-Mayors to presume to dictate to the Council, and I hope Mr Angland and his colleagues will give the representations of that deputation just the consideration deserved. When I read your editorial on Saturday, dealing with the homily delivered by Mr Walton on newspaper etiquette, I could not help thinking of the poet’s lines: “Speak gently of the erring,” for you treated your detractors with a gentleness that said much for your moderation, but spoke volumes for your unperturbed outlook, and the weight you attached to the tirade. I think in this case, you adopted the right course. We do not use a Nasmyth hammer when the occasion does not demand, we do not bring it into requisition, for instance, when we are laying carpets. Of Mr John Hole’s goodnatured and harmless platitudes, little need be said. They were, I suppose, as “helpful” to the “good cause” as were those of the next speaker, who told the Council how consistent he had ever been in opposing anything in the nature of obstructions being placed in the streets. But his memory must have played him a mean trick. When he was reminded that years ago, he had urged the erection of the War Memorial at the spot where the Council now proposes to erect the conveniences—and that the Memorial would have taken up a larger area, he naturally found himself in the position of vindicating his consistency, which, of course, in the face of such evidence was impossible. Then there was pictured what would happen in the case of a fire, with the Brigade rushing to the scene. It was a fearsome picture. We were told of ladders coming into contact with the obstruction at the junction of Stafford and Strathallan Streets. It must be remembered that the “obstruction” will be but fourteen inches high. Does the Brigade trail its ladders along the ground? If an obstruction but a few inches high can be likely to bring about such catastrophe as pictured by Mr Raymond, what about the 80ft column, which he suggested should be placed in the same position? I cannot see how this ex-Mayor can reconcile his statements. If Mr Raymond had no more convincing arguments to bring forward, would it not have been better for him to have remained silent? And then came Mr George Wallace, who, I understand, has expressed himself on occasion favourable to the choice of the Council, but who came forward at the Council meeting as a full-fledged opponent of the proposals.. But Mr Wallace’s instability is notorious; it has been instability that made the people tired of his Mayoralty. The work which the Council is now undertaking he should have accomplished during his six years in the Mayoral chair. But his efforts, like so many more*, were limited to words, words, words. Mr Wallace should know by this time, however, that he cannot, with success, go into two lobbies at the same time. Mr Rolleston’s summing up was the effort of a typical lawyer. His arguments regarding the removal of statues in Auckland and Dunedin w r ere good up to a point, but only to a point. Not even Mr Rolleston can place statues and conveniences in the same category. They are placed in position for different reasons. The latter are for utility purposes, the former are not. Mr Rolleston was quite right when he said that certain statues in the northern and southern cities had been removed. But why? Not because they were a danger to traffic where they were placed, but—and this should be noted carefully—in order to secure a better setting, for the memorials should, as far as possible, be set in suitable surroundings, with gardens and flowers and greenery around, not in the midst of masses of bricks and masonry. In the case of public conveniences, the position is very different. Who would think of placing them far from the madding crowd? I do not know what the members of the deputation would do, but I am sure few others would think of such an unbusinesslike proceeding. I think that Mr Rolleston should have explained the difference between a statue and a, convenience, and not have made an effort to draw a red herring across the scent. I cannot regard the arguments of the members of the deputation, without exception, as being other than worthless, and we cannot set such views against those of recognised authorities, including those of the Inspector-General of Health. Had the gentlemen who approached the Council been better acquainted with the position in other lands, it is unlikely that they would have made themselves look so ridiculous, although it is true some people do see much of the world without appreciating the lessons to be learned. I notice that one notable absentee from the deputation of ex-Mayors was Mr James Craigie. He was included in the roster arranged, but he was not present. Why? Because he believes that the Council is pursuing the proper course. I think citizens will recognise that his opinion on the question is well worth having. I hope that the Mayor and Council will adhere to its decision, that there will be no sidetracking the issue. The agitation is a purely fictitious one, and the dangers pictured are fantastically imaginative. Stick to your guns Mr Mayor, you have the support of the public of Timaru.— I am, etc., STANDFAST. Timaru, August 24.