ANOTHER EXHIBITION DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9112, 18 December 1907, Page 3

ANOTHER EXHIBITION DISPUTE.

«. MR. MUNRO AND THE DOMAIN BQARD. A FURTHER EXPLANATION. Mr Munro has given a further explanation in regard to the dispute between him and the Domain Board as to the condition in which tho Exhibition authorities left the ground at the site of the fernery. Mr Munro states that Mr Beswick, chairman of tho Board, in company with the secretary, visited the ground at the general manager's invitation. They were asked to see what was being done to restore the Park to its origin*.! condition. They were also invited to offer suggestions in regard to any point which they thought might be attended to, but which was not receiving the authorities' attention. ' v At that time Messrs Scott Brothers, ono of whom was a member of tho Board, were blasting and burying in tho Park tho foundations of their electrical light plant. The Exhibition authorities wore also burying certain concrete foundations in a similar manner. During" Mr Beswick's observations, no exception was taken to that method dealing with the concrete foundations. In those circumstances, Mr Munro felt that he was perfectly justified in burying the rocks which had formed part of | the fernery, and which to all intents I were similar debris to the other. Mr Beswick made some . suggestions. Amongst them was one that if the authorities handed over the Park to the Board, it would restore it to its original condition and to the Board's satisfaction, if it received £1500. Mr Beswick was asked to put that into writing. He did so, with regard to everything except the actual sum, and in his. letter ho simply says, "at an amount to be agreed upon." ," The wickedness of burying the stone in the Park," Mr Munro says, "is only discovered when I refuse to agree to the suggestions of the Board, that I should leave the rocks of tho fernery. Even this suggestion is not unconditional, as they argue, as a quid pro quo, that I should afco leave the soil there. That soil, the Board knoTvs perfectly well, is turf stripped off the Kite of the Machinery Hall, preparatory to the erection of that building, and it is imperative, in the terms of j the contract, th&t we should replace that turf. If I agreed to their suggestion, where would I get the material, except at much expense, in order to restore the turf on th.c site 1 of the Machinery Hall? When the hall was taken down, that was the only portioai | of the sites of the buildings from which ! turf had to be* removed, and it was nothing but a bed of eaiwi and gravel, i "In rpirard to my renly to Mr Berwick's letter, I claim that I eeiit him a courteous letter, thanking him for his suggestions, and stating that where j they were not inconsistent with tho ! contract, they would be carried out. j And how did the Board treat me? i When T suggested to theni, at the -inI stigation of the Railway Department, to consider an offer the Department was re?dy to make -in respect to leaving ballast' in the Park for use as a permanent road, what was their treatment of me? Read the Teport of the Board's meeting, where I was Tield up to ridi- ! cnle. They practically said to -me, ' S+ick to the contract, and remove the ballast.' My renly, although I did not Bay sk>, is ' Stick to the contract and remove the rocks.' " Somebody said that th© stones were sticking through the surface of the PTonnd. That is absolutely untrue. There iis not one eingle vestige of rock or other material, except, possible, that buried by Scott Brothers, winch is within eighteen inches of tire surface. My instructions were very clear, and I can make these statements from my own personal observations." {