LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2403, 8 March 1915, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

ROYAL CHORAL SOCIETY. Sir,—May I bo allowed to. correct some of the mistakes of the gentleman who writes to you under the name of "One of tho Bhoys." The reason I resigned was because Mr. was grossly insulted by a certain official of the Choral Society. There was no question as to the conductorship of the scoiety. Mr. Page had only just come here. On a second occasion a still worse insult was offered Mr. Pago by the same official, and an inquiry \vas held by the vice-presidents into the matter, at which I was present as a witness. To anyone who could look beyond his nose the hostility of the committee towards Mr. Page was not only obvious, but most pointed. One gentleman on that body told Mr. Page that though ho was City Organist liis position was exactly tho same as that of an ofiice boy ill _ the council employ—a statement which, if true, wis characteristic of the good taste displayed. Though Mr. Pago proved his case up to the hilt the committee' did nothing. I suppose because they were afraid of hurting tho society. , The iuquiry was a farce and Mr. Page did not even get an apology. This is a specimen of the treatment Mr. Page has been subjected to in Wellington. I am not going to indulge in any comparison between Mr. Page and Mr. Ploy. I can only say this, that it must be obvious to anyone who understands the_ rudiments of ohoral work that the society is steadily pursuing a downward path. I crave leave to differ with your correspondent over the performance of "Samson and Delilah." Certainly the society has a right to choose their own conductor, but at least their executive body might display a modicum of courtesy in their dealings with an artist and a gentleman.—l am, etc., D. K. FYFFE, M.D.

ONSLOW WATER SCHEME.

Sir, —In "Ratepayer's" letter in your issue of the 2nd we have a sample of the arguments of some of the opponents of our latest water scheme; and this scheme is opposed by very much the same people as before opposed the schemes submitted for a water supply for Onslow.

The same source of supply is dealt with; but Mr. C. C. Crump has taken great trouble' in convincing—or trying to convince—the Onslow people that there is a sufficient water supply from tbo catchment area for the needs of Onslow Borough for many years to come. And after following up Mr. Crump's arguments and checking his figures, I am convinced that his scheme is sound, and that that source of supply will be utilised eventually, though perhaps "Ratepayer's" friends may be successful in preventing the carrying of the poll at the. present time. "Ratepayer" is, perhaps, one of those who went to Onslow Borough about twenty years ago, and was lucky enough to obtain a . five-acre block for about £100. Now, when his five acres is worth about £3000, he kicks, against any improvements that will raise the amount he pays annually as rates; and he makes his literary efforts in an endeavour to' scare the Onslow people into throwing out this scheme. It will take probably all of three years to complete this scheme if adopted, and the Mayor has said lie would only go on with it if the loan money can be obtained at a, low rate. If it cannot be obtained- at a low rate, the people will have, to await better financial conditions before they can get a water supply. So they have to act now for a benefit that may accrue in three years' time. "Ratepayer" is not only in error in many, of his statements, but. mis-states known facts. The reservoir quantity, he states is wrong, the catchment area he.gives is wrong; he gives suggested figures as definite; and then he quotes a newspaper articlo as an authority. about "run-off" from a catchment area in a desert. His suggestion is that measurements of the "run-off should be made—i.e., measurements of water in the stream—and I need quote only, one authority, J. P. Frizell, on "Water Power," on referring to whose work it. will be.seen that stream measurements are of small. value unless taken daily over a period of many years.' ,He says:—"To determine the average flow of water to be expected from a stream, the measurements must extend over a series of years" (page 555). And: "The extent of drainage area, together with the rainfall of the ,region, forms the most indication of the flow of a stream in flood and low water" (page 2). This is the basis of Mr. Crump's figures. Therefore, if we carry out - "Ratepayer's" suggesion, Onslow may expect to be ready to instal a water-sup-ply scheme in about fifteen years', time. By then our united efforts will perhaps have increased the value of "Ratepayer's" block to £6000;. and no doubt then he will sell nine-tenths and make a profit of £5300. Probably three-quarters of the loan money will be required for the reticulation, and whether we later on join the city, or have a pumping scheme (proved to be much more expensive) we shall need the reticulation just the same. So after all, what benefit is there ill we outsiders worrying about the detail of the scheme; that has to be decided by the Onslow Borough Council, and they have found that the gravitation .scheme is the one to put before the ratepayers. It is either "Shall we have a water supply" or "Shall we stay as we are" that we have to decide.

An extensive road-grading scheme is another scarecrow: that is not necessary, or a larger loan would be required for this "water and road-grading scheme." . ••• . Such small matters as the _ 'switchback" in Victoria Road, behind Mr. Richardson's property at Khandallab will no doubt be put straight, but not out of loan money. ■ .

The compensation question is one upon which an opinion cannot be formed through a newspaper controversy. It will be left in the hands of our council if the poll is carried, and thev have already one legal opinion m their favour. This opinion is from a solicitor considered to be equally sound at law with that one whose opinion Ratepayer's" committee has served out to us in scraps in a pamphlet. The solicitor selected by "Ratepayer s_ committee has not had the same opportunities for examining this question as has the council's solicitor, and yet _ the whole burden of the former's opinion is "the council should be careful. Of course, the council will ho careful. If thev were not they would not now have the opinion of their own solicitor, who has had the .matter -under his attention since 1909, and his opinion is practically that in the most important case our' borough has nothing to fear. _ I apologise for the length of this letter, yet-even now there .are arguments I have not touched upon. It seems impossible to answer "Ratepayer" in full in one letter. I canonly leave it to the ratepayers to gain information for themselves by asking their neighbours: "What do you think?"— I am, etc., HERBERT KIRKCALDIE.

THE REGRETTABLE INCIDENT.

Sir, —Your correspondent "X" refers to an incident which is certainly a. regrettable one. 'A British subject is arrested and detained on Somes Island for some weeks and then released. The investigation of any charges against him does not seem to have been made public. If "X" or any other person can inform us of the particulars we should be able to form some opinion. As it'is we do not properly understand the merits of the case. Why is this case not treated like any ordinary case, in the ordinary Courts? AVliy should not all particulars be published?—l ajn, etc., _ i ' ■ Y NOT. I Jlarcb o, 1915.