Department: yet in their report in haste to find sites for 
hoiising they blinded themselves t£> the absolute necssity 
of houses for the Gardens staff, and recommended that the 
whole of divisions A and 3 be taken from the Gardens for 
• / 
letting as stated above; and that the fate of division C 
be discussed later, f 
While debating this the Commission caused tiie Colonial 
Engineer to prepare a ground plan of the divisions A and 3 
showing how houses could be fitted in, which plan is doubt¬ 
less in the Public Works Department’s offices, and makes 
the basis of an alternative proposal damaging to the Gardens 
- a, 
* 
Department, —~ . - — __ _ “ ~ 
^ --— ■ —— As a result o r the Commission's report I 
wa.s instructed to snend nothing unon the Economic Garden 
excent fo 1 * unkeep (¥our letter 3477/lB dated Pnd. December 
1918) . On December 5th, of the year X addressed yofc 
I07 66/IO) asking for land in 
substitution for divisions .3 and C and asked also for the 
retention by the Gardens of division ft; I followed this up 
with two letters ; one of June 5th. 1919 ( 5541/19) explaining 
fully the necessity of retaining division At the Acting 
Colonial Engineer having agreed to the reasonableness of 
the area that I had m&kked off, and giving you the cost of 
transferring to it quarters which do not happen to be MSM53 
within it, which cost you sanctioned; and the other of 
July 1st. T°I9 (6X47/X9) asking for land beyond the Munici¬ 
pal limits in lieu of divisions 3 and C, TTocn this the 
legislative Council reversed the orders, and T ^as told to 
carry on as formerly, /fa Vffe jCy 
ooua tLflci , The Gardens Committee having received 
Ife-s- decision with much satisfaction desired me to draw up 
plans for the complete utilisation of the ground, which 
plans I was unable to submit until my return from leave, 
and you h&rf them by a letter dated October nth. 1920 
