The Wanganui Chronicle "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1902. COUNCILLOR BRIDGE AND THE WATERWORKS SCHEME.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11755, 4 October 1902, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1902. COUNCILLOR BRIDGE AND THE WATERWORKS SCHEME.

We shotuld think that every intelligent ratepayer who takes a/ lively interest in the affairs of the Borough, and who has followed the evolution of the water supply proposals up to the point now reached, must find it difficult* to; understand the attitude taken up by the Mayor and Councillors in regard to the important questions raised by Councillor Bridge at the last meeting of the Council. The seeming discrepancies then pointed out were of a sufficiently alaimlng character to require explanation, the comparative figures quoted by Councillor Bridge were stai-tl-ir.g, and all that he asked for was that the report, of. the Waterworks Committee should be referred back to the Committee to enable inquiry to be made into the points raised. But the Council would not listen to him, and either wouM not or could not attempt to explain any one of the apparent inconsistencies to which he drew attention. Councillor Bridge*, so he was given to understand, had left his warning too la.te, and the report having come up for adoption, must be adopted. As we said! in a previous article on the subject, it is absurd to suppose that- the Councillors would have behaved with similar recklessness had the money they were proposing to spend been their own private capital. Although in one instance cited by Councillor Bridge! there was an apparent discrepancy of over twelve thousand1 pounds in the estimated cost of the reservoirs respectively proposed for the river and the artesian schemes^ the item was seemingly deemed too insignificant to requhie explanation). And this, it must be remembered, was only or,e of several important points raised by Councillor Bridge. The Council refused to accede to the reasonable request that, the adoption of the report should be postponed for a couple of weeks, and tacitly declared that no explanation Mas necessary. Councillor Bridge, however, was determined that the ratepayers should have the information to which- they were entitled, and that the engineer should be given the opportunity of explaining what, unexplained, was certainly incomprehensible to the lay mind. He accordingly, on the day - following' the meeting, wrote officially to the Mayor, requesting- that the matters to which he (Councillor Bridge) had referred' should be submitted to Mr. Mestayer for explanation. That gentleman's reply, as received1 by tie Mayor, has now been published. We regret that

we cannot describe that reply as wholly satisfactory. There is a tone of ofiensivene*i3 about Mr. Mestayer's reply which might be expected to be absent from the calmly considered communication of an expert confident of the impregnability of his facts and figures. Mr. Mestayer cannot complain if the unhappy tone of his reply is by some people interpreted, as another instance of the questionable principle which finds expression in the phrase, "When you have a bad case abuse the other side." We emphasise this feature of the engineer's reply because of the marked contrast which that reply presents to the inoffensive statement presented by Councillor Bridge. We may at or.cc say tibat, with regard to some of the points raised by .Councillor Bridge, the engineer's reply is reassuring and satisfactory, and that with regard! to all the points he has, from a strictly expert point, of view, provided a more or less* acceptable explanation. In other words, if we accept without ques/bicta the basris upon which he has gone to work, Mr. Mestayer has theoretically justified his figures. But that is just what we do not accept. Mr. Mestayer twits Councillor Bridge with having "compared dissimilar things bo one another,' but he appears to forget, or to fail to comprehend, that it was by following precisely that line of action that he himself occasioned the doubt as to the accuracy of his own estimates. For some reason best known to himself, Mr. Mestayer saw fit, for the purpose of comparison, to place the Okehu and the artesian schemes on the same footing, and to refrain altogether from telling the ratepayers just wh*-*t they wanted to know concerning the artesian scheme. What they wanted to know was not how great a scheme could be evolved from that source, but whether at a small cost we could obtain enough water from the wells to- tide us over a few yeaus and to enable us to judge by practicail and comparatively inexpensive experience of the wisdom or otherwise of subsequently extending the system. In other words, the artesian scheme was never contemplated as other than a purely auxiliary one, while the Okehu scheme has from the first been considered more h^ the light ctf a permanent and much more costly undertaking. The peculiarity of Mr. Mestayer's conception of the artesian scheme is accentuated1 by his reply to Councillor Bridge, in which he says that in his estimate loir the river scheme he was providing appliances: merely to meet the immediate requirements of the plaice, with a view to future extension as necessitated by the growth of population. Why did he not proceed on similaii- lines when dealing with the artesian scheme? We think that the ratepayers1, after carefully | studying Councillor Bridge's original statement, Mr. Mestayer's reply, and Councillor Bridge's, answer to that reply (which appears in another column) will be forced to the conclusion that for some incomprehensible reason —and it may be without any intent on *he part of tOie engineer— ! the artesian scheme has been killed by aai alarming estimate based on ai misconception ; or, to put it in expert phraseology, by the expert process of placing totally d'isrfmiilar schemes on 'an equal footing' for the puiipose of comparis<o<n. Turning to the local critics of Councillor Bridge, it is not surprising to find them indulging in wilful misrepresentation. The "Herald," lin giving- an unqualified acceptance to Mr. Mestayer's reply, deliberaitejijy attempts tio place Councillor Bridge in a false position. It is suggested that Councilor Bridge, after agreeing to the report of the Waterworks Committee recommending the adoption of the Okehu scheme, served his follow ccimmiitteemen a shaibby trick by at the last mnoment turning rouiid and opposing the repoaft and by attempting to prove that the artesian was th«: much the better of the tAVO schemes, This is not only very unfair; it is positively unture. Councillor Bridge, as he himself has explained (although the "HeraW did not go out of its way to- publish, that explanation) did agree to tflie report when the draft wa*s decided on by the committee, but between that time and the presentation of the report' to the Council, he became possessed off the information , which caused him to doubt the accuracy of some of the figures contained in the different reports presented by Mr. Mestyer to the Council. This information was arrived at ais the result of a caretal compa.riv.on of the different reports. It may Ibe that this comparison should have been made earlier, but "Bette»late than never" is a good maxim, and if Councillor Bridge is at all blameable for his "late dVov- . cry," how much more bt'ameable are. the j other Councillors and the Mayor. G'oun- | cillor Bridge's explanation of his subsequent decision to tfign the report, while at the same time persisting in his objection to its hurried adoption!, ha.* al.<o been misrepresented. Possibly this: is iifcause those responsible for tllie misreprevfru Nation have a somewhat more elastic con ception of honourable responsibili'.v than is held by Councillor Bridge. C-r.iie 15«.r Bridge says that he felt that I.c w;i* in duty bound to sign the ren.'vt j oca'r<o, to a'l intents and purposes, b's Mgiipturt was, by inference ajul voluii./uj agre* meat, appendedl to the day.•'*.::% at the time of its acceptance by tin omimilteo, of which he wan a member. That is to say that, if tJlie report had I'-.n thfn ai.d there drafted lie would then and there have signed it, and he did not think it would be fair to; shirk his responsibility simply because it was not then written and signed. Consequently he agreed to tiign it, while continuing to oppose its adoption unfal the matters which had I came under his notice, a«d which in the

interests of the ratepayers lie considered required explanation, had been duly submitted to the engineeV for his report and explanation. Further, Councillor Bridge did not pout out the apparent discrepancies for >the purpose of "proving that the Aramoho artesian scheme was in every way preferable" to the Okehu gravitation scheme. There is nothing in the whole of his statement to warrant any such inference, and, moreover, he took pains to make it clear that he had an entirely differed object in his mind. The gratuitous assumption that Councillor Bridge "was to a large extent the mouthpiece of siameone outside the Council table" scarcely calls for any comment. It is so obviously paltry that no fair-minded man would give it credence. It is, moreover, an uncalled for insult to an intelligent public man who has endeavoured to protect the interests of his constituents. The "Herald," however, has made the statement, and we now challenge our contemporary, in the rame of fair play, to justify itn assertion by publishing the name of the "someone'" to whom it so pointedly refers. Just ne other point. Councillor Bridge is pictured as the "critic" of Mr. Mestayer, and his "criticism" is discounteel because he is a layman,. Councillor Bridge never professed or attempted to> criticise Mr. Mestayer. Being a. layman, and holding a poSitidn, of responsibility in relation to his fellow ratepayers!, he noticed certain apparently startling discrepancies in the cost of certain apparently similar contrivances, and all he avked for was that these things should be explained. On the "Herald's" assumption, no layman has any right to inquire into oa* question the statement and figures of professional experts. Of what use, then, is the Council ? Absolutely none at all if tihe assumption is carried' to its logical conclusion. When our readers have perused Councillor Bridge's reply to Mr. Mestayer we think they will agree wiith us that his questioning has not been in vain, and that Mr. Mestayer has stilH a little left to answer.