CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 480, 25 July 1871, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

r\Vo are not responsible for our Correspondents' 1 opinions.]

To the Editor of the Eves ing Stae. g IB) The livening News of the 22nd inst., in aJeadiug article referring to an article in thel Cross of the 20Lli instant, states that that journal-"assumes my route by the Razors' kfaM, to be the same as that recommended by *"~ Mr. Wrigg," and goes on to state, " This is not so." I have distinctly stated in my report that it was not so, and I do not believe Mr. Wrigg over saw my line or thought of taking his that way, until after my report was published. The terrors of Mazorback did not require to be got over by me us I discovared a route without going over Razorback—which seems to have frightened both Mr. Wrigg and Mr. James Stewart, C.E., —as even the latter, if he ever looked for it, abandoned it in favor of the Tuakau line, according to the leader, above referred to, in the Evening News. The -writer of this article makes a deliberate mis statement when ho says that my line goes within two and a half miles of the river at Tuakau, as also when he says that there would be a saving in the coat of railway construction by having the lino stop at the river at Tuakau instead of Mercer, as the western or Tuakau line, from Drury, will cost £1000 per mile move than my routo! Whoever the writer may be, it is very evident he writes for a purpose, and his opinion on the cost of railway works—if I mistake not the partyhave been tried and found valueless iv this colony already. I would just add, that even if there was a rise of 300 feet at Rutherford's farm, from Drury, it is only about 1 in 100, and I never said it was a " dead level." As the article is full of mistakes or mis-state-ments I shall not trouble you with noticing any more of them. —I am, &c, John Gwynneth, C.E.