CATHEDRAL SQUARE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18769, 27 May 1929, Page 8

CATHEDRAL SQUARE.

To the Editor. Dear Sir, —“Clean Up” feels hurt because I call the “Save the Square” people humbugs and hypocrites. Evidently “Clean Up” would be peeved if I called a spade a spade. I call a man a hypocrite and a humbug who sets out to do the people a direct injury purposely and knowingly, of malice aforethought, if it so pleases, and all the while he is doing this injury he is pretending that he is trying to do a great good for the people. The “Save the Square” people have set themselves the task of doing' the people a great harm. They are trying to shift the shelter shed from Cathedral Square and in place thereof to provide a very pretty little, well-kept grass plot that will be of no service to anyone, and they pretend that this is doing the people a service, that they are carrying out the wishes of the pioneers, that they are going to make the Square beautiful, and for all I know they may be going to do lots of other things. And I say that because of this pretence of better things which will not be fulfilled they are hypocrites. A man who says straight out that he _is trying to hunt the people out of the Square, to demolish the shelter for no given reason, and to subject the people to every kind of exposure while waiting for trams, and who * promises nothing in return, is not necessarily a hypocrite, but the “Save the Square” people have promised to do those marvellous and wondrous performances, and for that reason, I think, they deserve the name of hypocrites. The “Save the Square” people have continually professed their desire to carry out the wishes of the pioneers. It would be interesting to know what “Clean Up” and any of his gang know

about the wishes of the pioneers. He and they have stuffed themselves that the pioneers had certain intentions in respect of the beautifying of the Square, but from the earliest se-tle-ment and onward the people have used the Square as the business centre of a busy township, village, or city, as people would be expected to use such a place. Photos have been published of early settlers with their horses and carts resting in the Square. This talk of respecting and carrying out the wishes of the pioneers is all humbug, and is only used as an excuse for the intended destruction of the people’s right to use the Square. What the pioneers intended regarding the Square nobody knows, but it is certain that the pioneers did not intend the people to be pushed ruthlessly aside and to be prevented from using the Square as the centre of the business part of a busy city, nor did they expressly say that no shelter for weary pedestrians should be provided, nor that a grass plot would be of more benefit than a tram shelter, and I am quite sure those same pioneers did not instruct the “Save the Square” people to pull down the tramway shelter. As for beautifying the- Square, what is the intention of the “Save the Square” hypocrites? What are they going to do to secure this beauty? According to “Clean Up”, the shelter is to go and the Cathedral is to face a grass plot, as is the case with most of the beautiful cathedrals in the world, and will not “face what our Cathedral faces.” This sounds very nice indeed. Is it his intention to clear all traffic from the Square, to grass Colombo Street from Broadway’s to the Bank, or what does he wish to do? To place the Cathedral in a wide open park like Hagley Park, with beautiful trees and shady walks is the one thing impossible as the Cathedral now stands, and the only way to do these things is to shift the Cathedral of shift the Square. What we might try to do is to shift the Square to 1 Cranmer Square or Latimer Square, or to shift the centre of the City, Colombo Street, Cashel Street, Gloucester Street and all, half a mile eastward. Then the “Save the Square” people could do whatever they please to wreak their vengeance on the people and to make the Square a private preserve. Finally I wish to say I prefer pretty spots to eyesores, and that I just love roses, carnations and all pretty things, that I am very fond of music and scenery, but I am'not in the habit of trying to delude myself into thinking that whatever is of use to the people is an abomination or that a building with real architectural preter.sions would not be an improvement on the present structure. I have said so already. I have not yet said one word as to whether or not the conveniences should be in the Square or elsewnere, although “Clean Up” has ascribed something of that kirid to me, ard I may say that if a photo of the “Save the Square” people would please “Clean Up”, with Mr Green as the central figure, I hope he may be able to arrange it to be taken in front oi a new tramway shelter in the place where the present one is. Incidental)', he forgot to say where Mr Gould is to be in the picture, but it seems he is not to be regarded as the cential figure.—l am, etc.,