OBSERVATIONS, No. 2.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 959, 4 August 1903, Page 2

OBSERVATIONS, No. 2.

(To the Editor Gisborne Times.)

Sir, —After supper I sat with my friend “ The Spectator "before a cosy fire, and endeavored to read his reflections as he ■ alternately puffed at his pipe and contemplated the changing color of the meerschaum. “ It gives a lot of heat and smoke before the staining is complete,” I suggested. “Yes it does,” replied “ The Spectator,” meditatively ; “so do the Public men of Gisborne before any project is realised.” “ Pardon me, sir I Not all,” I remarked, “ there are one or two obstinate objectors who originate and maintain all the strife.” “ The Spectator ” arose, and utilising hia pipe as a baton, emphasised the following remarks : “My dear chap 1 How can you be so deluded ? The obstinacy of those few should stimulate the dormant energies of their fellows who display every weakness and exhibit every want of tact that ambitious opposition could wish for. Were the Councillors to post themselves up in every practicable detail they would be on the alert for additional information with the hope of benefit, and would be in a.-J<bsi-tion to meet adverse criticism and acknowledge its truth or denounce it to the satisfaction of the ratepayers. They have given their assurance of disregard of any further evidence, which, though incomprehensible to them, deserves their courteous recognition being as a rule all important to the individuals by whom it has been advanced. As a result the press give voice to dissatisfaction, dogged obstinacy persists, and ill-feeling and turmoil usurp the places of mutual purpose and regard ” “ True 1 true 1 ” I said, “ and by your argument the Ratepayers’ Association are forced into an action which is apparently a vote of non-confidence in the Council.” “ Yes,” answered “ The Spectator, “but the Association is not yet representative, remember. Their action was unwise, the’

resolution should have been submitted to ;he Council. Consultant advice would&e irofitable and indeed clears the question. 3ne opinion is useless. Medical, geological,' md engineering opinion, would leave no oom for doubt on any point. Take tho a3O of Dunedin. The Drainage Board ad’ertised far and wide for an engineer to urnish a report on, and carry out the forks of a drainage and sewerage scheme ir city and suburbs, the scheme proposed' 3 cost £200,000, engaging the engineer’s * irvices for sis years. J. G. Noble Ander)n, one time lecturer on mechanical igineering at Melbourne University, relived the appointment, but his report was 3t received with unanimous approval, he - ld his opponents, and at their instigation iree consultant engineers, Mestayer, Bey>lds, and Pwogers were appointed to re- • irt on the scheme. The Health Departent was consulted too and assisted the jard in drawing up its by-laws, which eto be strictly enforced. The schemes water and drainage here are to be but b embryos of greater schemes, and too ich expert advice and information- cant, I think, be obtained.”—l am, etc., The Spectator)