Dear Sir

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 94, 3 July 1946, Page 4

Dear Sir

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to amend or withhold any letter or letters.

•R.S.A, CARNIVAL BALL

Sir—-While not wishing to enter into any paper controversy, I feel that I would be lacking in my duty to the R.S.A., if I let go unchallenged, the letter written by C. .Zinsli, under the heading of “This Crowning Ceremony:” In the first place, I think it is unfortunate that either Mr ■Zinsli, or anyone thinking like him, does not take the trouble to find out the true facts before rushing into print with a lot of statements.

The following, briefly,-is the position:—

1. The £7OOO so generously subscribed by the public, has been invested in Trust Funds, and not one pennypiece is being expended in connection with the Ball, or the Crowning Ceremony. 2. A sum, “but not substantial” has been made available to each of the Princesses for the purpose of purchasing suitable robes for the oc-' casion, but not out of the £7OOO. 3. A committee, consisting of members of each committee operating throughout the Carnival, fixed the price of admission, after going, into all the expenses in connection with running the ceremony. Allowing 15/ouble ticket—assuming there will be 600 present at an average of 7/6, per head—will still have a deficiency, so that the price of admission has been kept ta an absolute minimum. 4. With reSkrence to putting on a public funcjgli. for tfre benefit of the aged aspect has not been cor3o.ered; f||ijno doubt,' should any apj|bal belfpcle to the Executive, they&would be only too pleased to discuss with the. various Princesses, and the many > helpers, the question of repeating.'the/performance on some su'itable'occasion. Yours etc., L. H. BROWN, President, Returned Services’ Assn.

COMPLAINTS FROM OHOPE

Sir, —Your inaccurate reporting under this sub-heading of my letter to the County Council has damaged my reputation and I shall be glad if you will correct your mis-statements by publishing this letter. I made no complaint, nor did I “respectfully” suggest that the council might assist me. I stood upright, on both feet and told the council what the sea was doing to my property and what I had done to protect the property. I pointed out that if unprotected and erosion were to continue, the time would come when the council could no longer collect rates as the property would be under the sea. As I had taken action to prevent this occurring I considered that I had acted partly in the interests of the council as well as in my own. I therefore suggested that the council might deem it fair and ‘just to share the expense of the work done, by forgoing demanding rates from me for a period equal in rates to the expenditure on materials only, while I stand the labour cost.

Your statement that the groyne cost me £39 14s is also incorrect.

Furthermore, I consider Councillor Leslie’s statement as reported by you, that the council owed no responsibility to ratepayers who suffered from erosion of any kind, a sufficient answer to my suggestion, and I take strong exception to the remarks, if correctly reported, of Councillors Luxton and McCready if their remarks referred to me or included me as they appear to do in your report, and say, that as far as I am concerned they are entirely incorrect. Yours etc., E. R. MARRYATT. (We regret the tone of the above corespondence, which we feel is totally unwarranted. We have taken the trouble to secure and re-read our correspondent’s letter to the County Council and to carefully compare our report. We have no apologies to make. From what we see it is fair and accurate.. We may remind our correspondent that it is still possible