NEW VOTE ON WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 911, 9 June 1903, Page 2

NEW VOTE ON WATER AND DRAINAGE.

(To Uic Editor Gisborne Times.) Sir, —Without explaining myself, I fear that some of your readers may justly think 1 was not speaking correctly when I stated at the last Council meeting that the Council had never yet “ considered Mr Mestayer’s schemes." Considering the columns oi reports which have appeared in the local press from time to time, of discussions on these subjects, I am sure that, many will not credit that my remarks are nevertheless true. 1 say distinctly that the Council, as a Council, has never yet considered Mr Mestayer’s schemes for water and drainage, and it has heeji both Mr Whinray’s and my own complaint right through that the Council have never considered the schemes separately or on their merits. All the columns of matter which have been published from time to time have been merely the supporters of Mr Mestayer’s schemes trying to defend that gentleman and his schemes from attack, for they seem to think it is beyond their power or duty to in any way question the schemes in any detail, and one Councillor has gone so far as to say at the Council table that he does not feel qualified to consider the report in any point. This being the position, it is essential for the ratepayers, before voting again on these important questions to thoroughly understand and consider tho position themselves. Cr Whiuray and myself, feeling that our duty was to watch the interests of the ratepayers, and not those of Mr Meslayer, have front time to time attacked the schemes by pointing out- weak spots in them We have repeatedly moved that the schemes should be considered, hut every time the majority of tlie Council have refused to consider them. The last motion moved to this effect was at tlie last Council meeting, and was only lost upon the casting vote of the Mayor. This position was brought, about, l am thankful to say, by some of the new Councillors supporting the motion that the schemes should he considered before being again submiled to the ratepayers. Prior to tlie last poll being taken, Mr Meslayer’s estimate i'or the Waihirere scheme, with a 12-inch supply main was reduced in the loan proposals by £12,97U. This reduction was never considered by ihe Council, hut was accepted by the majority without question, and when I repeated!} stated in the Council that Mr .Mestayer’s estimates had been departed from for the Waihirere water, scheme, it was emphatically denied.

and I was told 1 was overlooking a comma in reading the engineer's report, and could not read plain English. This position was maintained until the new Council was returned, when some of the new Councillors expressing curiosity about the figures Mis Worship acknowledged for the iirst time that he was responsible for having departed from the engineers figures, and gave reasons that had never before been given, either to the Council or to the ratepayers, for so altering -Mr Mestayer’s figures.

In your issue of the 22nd January, 1302, being the day of the last poll, you will see a filial letter ol warning from Cr Whinray and myself, saying that Mr Mestavers estimate tor water from Waihircre was being understated by £122)70 in the loan proposals. This statement, • although persistently denied, is by the Mayor's admission shown to be correct. Now, in addition, we have a new phase by the Mayor, again without giving anv reason whatever, beyond saying that provision should be made in the loan proposals, to pay oil the Council's current overdraft. Me lias coolly taken £6,1)00 oil the £Ho,OOU provided for drainage and set it aside to pay off the Council’s overdraft ; with the result that the ratepayers arc to he again asked to vote for Mr Mestayer’s water and drainage scheme, and the amounts provided in the loan proposals are .£12,070 short of Mr Mestayer’s estimate for water and £6,000 short for drainage and no provision made for payment ot land for either scheme. —I am etc W. DOUGLAS LYSNARi