The Star. THURSSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1868.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 163, 19 November 1868, Page 2

The Star. THURSSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1868.

It may be assumed, after the meeting in the Town Hall last night, that we have now heard all the arguments which can be advanced against the proposed road through Hagley Park in continuation of Armagh street. It is the duty of the public — for we insist on treating this question as a public one notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to give it a wholly different character — to enquire what these arguments are worth, how far they are in keeping with ordinary common sense as opposed to mere sentiment, and whether they do not, in some instances, involve a contradiction in terms. .Befpre doing this, it may be as well to take a passing glance at the meeting itself. In the first place, who got up, the meeting? "Who signed the requisition to the Mayor? Ib does not take a very close examination of the list of names published in our columns on Tuesday, to show that at least fifty out of the fiftyfour signatures, represent men whose places of business are in or near the Triangle, High and Cashel streets. The most noticeable feature about the requisition is the fact that five City Councillors , signed it, and that they are all directly interested — we use the phrase advisedly and with no intention of offence —in maintaining the existing state of things. We think it would have been better if Messrs Anderson, Duncan, Angus, Ruddenklau, and Sawtell had remembered only that they were City Councillors in this matter. It would have looked better, to say the very least of it, if their names had not appeared on the requisition. A public man would, we think, do well to observe the rule of placing himself abore even suspicion in any case where his private interests might be supposed to influence his public duty. We do not say that the City Councillors we have named allowed themselves to be influenced in this matter by their obvious private interests,, but we do say that they can hardly expect to be considered above the suspicion of having done so.' So much for. the promoters of the; meeting. 2Jo one will for a moment deny that Messrs Ollivier and Hamilton, in op-

posing the formation of the road through- Hagley Park, did so from the most disinterested motives. We maydisagree, with their opinions, and place little value on their arguments, but it is impossible to call in question the motives which induced them to take the part they did in the meeting. Mr Ollivier endeavoured to show that the proposed road had never been contemplated by the founders of the settlement, the Government, or the Provincial Council, and that it was illegal. Now, if such is the case, what is the use of all this agitation about tbe matter ? If the opponents of the road are in a position to say to those who desire it — -you cannot legally make this road— there is an end of the matter ; and there is no necessity to get up a public meeting. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Superintendent has the power, if he chooses, to, sanction the formation of this road. Mr Ollivier, and apparently Mr Hamilton also, object to this road principally on the ground that it would be a dray road, and they do so because, as they say, a dray road would raise a large amount of dust. We ask the public to pay special attention to this part of the arguments. A mere carriage road, or as it is called in the resolution passed by the meeting, a "pleasitre road" is not objected tp. Why ? Because it won't raise any dust in the Park. That, although reasonable and reasoning men will hardly believe it, is all the argument. Eeduce it to plain English, and what does ifc mean ? A dray road must not be obtained, because it will make the Park dusty- a carriage road, or " pleasure road," you may have because it is not open to the same objection. Is this argument worth anything? Is it even common sense ? Is it not, on the other hand, the most arrant nonsense ? We ask this question deferentially, and with a desire to know how a dray road would make the Park more dusty than a "pleasure road." We remember to have noticed the road from the Hospital to Dilloway's on a very busy day for drays, and also on a day when carriages or traps were the principal vehicles to be seen. It struck us thafc the latter raised ?boufc three times as much dust as the former. It just occurs to us to ask how the word " carriage," as applied to the road through Hagley Park not objected to by Mr Ollivier and others, is fco be defined. Is it to be limited to the pair of dashing greys or bays in a regulation brougham ? Will it include the humble " trap " in which many an honest farmer drives to town, and the equally homely turn-out in which many respectable citizens seek a breath of fresh air in the country ? In a word, how are those who say they do not object to a carriage road to regulate the use of it ? But the dray road is objected to on another ground — because ifc will cut up the Park. Will a carriage road — a " pleasure road " we ought to call it — leave the Park intact ? The inference, of course, is that it will, because ifc is not objected to. We think it would have been better if Mr Ollivier — who ought to have nothing whatever to do with tradesmen's quarrels — had left oufc all that part of his speech in which he dwells on the selfishness and self-interest of the promoters of the road. It perhaps did not occur to Mr Ollivier thafc the promoters of the meeting which he was addressing are open to the same charge of selfishness and self-interest in a greater degree. If the pot is black in this matter, ifc is very clear that the kettle is several degrees blacker. The promoters of the road, not denying their selfinterest, say ifc will not infringe on the privileges of the public ; the opponents of the road, with few exceptions, denying that they have any self-interest whatever, set themselves up as defenders of the public rights. Which are preferable ? Mr Ollivier went out of his way, we think, to remind the dwellers near the Market Place of the forlorn appearance their neighbourhood has. Did ifc never occur to him that traffic left the Market Place for the neighbourhood of the Triangle, simply because the directest road led" straight to the latter ? Would that traffic have gone the way it has if there had been a direct .road from Dilloway's to the Market Place ?. Did ifc ever strike the ratepayers that a direct road from Dilloway's would assuredly lead to something being done with the Market

Place — something that would bring in a large -revenue , and - so save their pockets ? They , J would do well to think the matter oyer. Mr Ollivier will, we believe, find that he was altogether wrong in denying!, that the Domain Board had given their assent to the road. We have reason to believe that they have done more. And we think it is probable that the gentlemen who comprise thafc Board will not feel complimented by Mr Ollivier's remarks, or care to rest satisfied with the position he assigns them. They claim for themselves, we presume, a higher position and a greater responsibility than mere gardeners' overseers. In conclusion, we have a few words to say about the consistency of some of those who now oppose this road on the ground that it would cut up the people's Park. Was there not at one time a movement, originating in the City Council, to take a portion of the Park for a public market? Did Messrs Anderson, Duncan, and Ruddenklau agree to or oppose thafc movement in their place in the City Council? Circumstances do alter cases, especially when they come home to us by the medium of the breeches pocket.