STREET OBSTRUCTIONS.

West Coast Times, Issue 910, 22 August 1868, Page 3

STREET OBSTRUCTIONS.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE WEST COAST TIMES. Sib — Three drapers appeared bo 'ore the Police Court this morning charged with the very grave ouence of obstructing tho public thoroughfare by having goods projecting one foot outside their buildings. They were each fined £'1 and 6s 6d costs. It is, I think, a hard matter that business men who contribute a large amount of revenue to the State cannot place a few drapery goods beside their doors, and those goods having actually got damp through the extreme humidity of the climate, but must be abused by a policeman, summoned and dragged before a Magistrate as if they had Committed some •^fierious offence against the laws of their country. The police know well the - thoroughfare is not obstructed, and why this prosecution, for I can call it nothing else.. In Wellington and Dunedin, where traffic is three times as great as in Hokitika, the drapers are not prevented from placing piles of goods beside iheir doors, and in front of their buildings. The police in those towns are e\idcntly better employed than in looking after drapers' shops and lounging at publichouse doors. Hokitika, for its population (which is growing small by degrees and disgustingly less), has a larger police force attached to it than any town in Nevr Zealand. I think it is unfair, when our population is diminishing, that we should be obliged to support such a largo staff here, where they aro not needed, when their services might be more profitably used in the North Island. I am, yours, A Draper. August 21, 1868. [We insert our correspondent's letter, but cannot endorse either his facts or opinions. Revell street is too narrow even for the present reduced traffic, and the side-walks are ridiculoxisly so. It is necessary for the public convenience that as few obstructions as possible shall be allowed to exist, and it is distinctly the duty of the police to interfere whenever such obstructions come under their notice. It is under the provisions of the Canterbury Police Ordinance that they act when bringing cases of this description before the Bench. One of the offending drapers who was fined yesterday morning, urged in Court the same excuse as our correspondent. He said " the extreme humidity of the climate made it absolutely necessary that the goods should be exposed, otherwise they would be destroyed on the shelves." The magistrate's asswer was dry enough at all events, when he told the defendant that there was " nothing in the Ordinance about the moisture in the atmosphere." It is not true that in Wellington, or Dunedin, tradesmen are allowed to place their goods on the thoroughfares. The practice is not tolerated in any considerable town in New Zealand, or indeed in any of the Colonies. It was not alleged at the hearing that the police executed their duty in an offensive manner, far less that they were abusive. It is manifestly unfair to blame the police when simply doing what the law requires of them. The last part of our correspondent's letter refers to the number of the police force in Hokitika." "A Draper" surely does not know how small that number is at present, or he would not advocate a further reduction. In conclusion, we may remark that if the drapers were allowed the use of the thoroughfare for the airing, or display, of their goods, every other trade would be entitled to the same license, and an intolerable nuisance would be created. Far be it from us to throw obstacle* in the way of business, but in this matter it seems to us our correspondent is clearly in error. — Ed. W. C Tl