“ STUPID LETTER,” SAYS MAYOR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18452, 1 May 1928, Page 12

“ STUPID LETTER,” SAYS MAYOR.

WOMEN’S CLUB MAKES PROTEST AGAINST NEW CONVENIENCES. CATHEDRAL SQUARE PROPOSAL DISCUSSED. Strong exception to a letter from the committee of the Canterbury Women’s Club, protesting against the proposed improvements to the conveniences in Cathedral Square was taken by the Mayor, the Rev J. K. Archer, at a meeting of the City Council last night. ‘ A letter like this from women who are supposed to be responsible citizens makes one despair of ever doing anything worth while for the city. In my opinion, the women who wrote this letter should be severely snubbed,” he said. The letter was as follows: — We, the committee of the Canterbury Women’s Club, representing nearly 400 Women of this city, desire to protest in the strongest possible terms against any further desecration and defilement of Cathedral Square by building additional conveniences there. We feel, as do all the ratepayers of Christchurch who count beauty, decency and the fitness of things above mere utility, that the present “utilities” in the Square should never have been placed in their present position, and would strongly urge their removal to remoter parts of the city. If it is necessary to have conveniences in the centre of the city at all. we Would suggest that they be built anywhere rather than in front of our beautiful Cathedral. If a tramway shelter can be made in some odd place like the present one for the Lin wood and Dallington trams why could not others for trams such as Nos. S, 5. etc., be built in several different places—at the Tramway Board’s present offices, for instance—with the conveniences, if necessary. underground: and so remove altogether the hideous and obnoxious structure in the centre of the Square. Trusting you will see that our protest is merely in defence of the ordinary decencies of life, we are, gentlemen, Your truly, The Committee of the Canterbury Women's Club. THE MAYOR'S COMMENT. The Mayor (the Rev J. K. Archer) said that the letter was a very extraordinary one, and he could hardly believe that it had been written by a woman on behalX of women. At first he thought the letter had been written by some hooligan, who was trying to play a joke on the Women’s -Club. However, on looking up the original, he was surprised to find that the letter had not been written by a silly young flapper of seventeen, but by a woman who should have had sufficient experience of life to bring her face to face with its realities. The letter claimed to represent 400 women, but he did not believe that 25 per cent of them would subscribe to the views expressed in the letter. The women, who supported the letter, were either ignorant of the real facts of the position, or else were indifferent to them. There could be no argument that the conveniences were absolutely necessary,

though they might not be necessary for the members of the Women’s Club, but while they represented, as they claimed, 400 women, the council had to think of 40,000 or 50,000 women and girls. If the Women's Club really wished to help the city, instead of writing a stupid letter like the one they had before them, why did not they throw open their club rooms to all the women of the city, and let them £hare. the conveniences and comforts provided there? A letter like this from women who were supposed to be responsible citizens made one despair of ever doing anything worth while for the city. In his opinion the women who had written the letter should be very severely snubbed. "PURELY PROPAGANDA.’ Councillor Elizabeth M’Combs said that nothing could have surprised her more than to find a group of women in the city sending such a letter to the council. It had been an established grievance among the women of the city for many years past that so little provision had been made for women's con veniences. One could come to no other conclusion than that the letter was inspired. Were the members of the executive of the Canterbury Women's Club sincere in regard to" their attitude to women's conveniences they had-about three years in which to make their protest. But at the last minute they chose to send in that inspired letter. It was purely propaganda on the part of those opposed to making the conveniences decent. In her opinion that group of people was using the Canterbury Women s Club, and had inspired the executive of that body to send the protest. Had the writers of the letter thought for a minute of the selfishness of their attitude she believed they would not have sent it. especially as they had their own club rooms just out of the Square. It was outside the range of practical politics to remove the conveniences from the Square. “AN ABOMINATION.” Councillor H. T. Armstrong. M.P.. Said that one would imagine from the opposition that had suddenly cropped up during the past few- months that the idea of improving the conveniences in Cathedral Square had originated in the Labour City Council, and also that there were no conveniences in the Square at present. The present council and the past council were practically unanimouslv of opinion that either the abomination that existed in the Square at present should be very greatly improved or abolished. He had never heard of any opposition from the women of Christchurch to the conveniences until the letter came to hand. Councillor Annie Herbert had more right to speak for the women of Christchurch than had the Women’s Club. Until that night he was sure that not 5 per cent of the people of Christchurch had ever heard of the club. The previous council had been on the verge of maxing representations to the Board of Health, and he was firmly of opinion that were it not for the fact that a Labour council had been elected, the scheme would have been under way at present. The members of the club did not seem to know that there were ladies on the council, as they concluded their letter with the words: “We are, gentlemen, yours truly,” etc. (Laughter.) If the council was not to be allowed to improve the conveniences it should remove them. AN ‘ HYSTERICAL LETTER.

letter as hysterical. He said it was obvious that the letter was not calm or* measured, and that those who had written it had not studied the position. To any sane person it must be obvious that, where people congregated together, provision had to be made for their comfort and convenience. The letter was obviously inspired. and he agreed with the Mayor that it should be utterly ignored. Councillor E. 11. Andrews said that the Women's Club’ was entitled to protest if it liked. However, the object of the council was to improve the present conveniences. It was not a party question at all. A scheme to improve the conveniences had been drawn up by a representative committee of citizens. The conveniences were, after all, only a small part of the scheme, and it was very unfair of the newspapers to keep harping on the question of conveniences. In the first place, a new and better tram shelter would be provided. The new conveniences also would be much better than the present ones, and. further, the entrances to them would be almost entirely hidden. Whether they liked it or not, the Square had become the tram centre, and people congregated there and would continue to do so. ITe knew quite a number of members of the Women’s Club ■ who were not opposed to the scheme. He thought, perhaps, that some people did not realise exactly what the council intended to do. He thought the council should do more to make its scheme known. Councillor G. Manning said it was obvious from their letter that the members of the Women’s Club did not undejstand the position. In the interests of public health the council should go ahead with the scheme as quickly as possible. Councillor J. W. Roberts said that the present shelter and conveniences were a disgrace to the city, and they should be swept away. In his opinion the Square was the only place for the new conveniences.