ORPHANDOM’S LETTER.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 773, 6 October 1922, Page 6

ORPHANDOM’S LETTER.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I read wjtth extreme disapproval a letter written by “Orphandom,” 'appearing in your issue qf 29th uilt. Orphan’s Clu'bs are founded upon a spirit of harmony and goodfellowship towards mankind, but judging by the caustic remarks made by “Orphandom,” he fails .to realise this fact. An error.. cf judgment may have been made but a true Orphan should' never target himself where a lady is concerned. —I am. etc ' ’* ANOTHER ORPHAN. (To the Editor). Sir), —Some months ago. the committee of our Primary School decided that it was necessary to take steps to raise a sum of money so that the school and outbuildings, witch have become very shoddy and delapidated. should be put in order. As a food round sum was required and no qlp in the form of a Government grant could 1 be expected, the committee resolved to appeal to the generosity of the people in our district • and, through the means of a Queen Carnival, try and raise a sufficient aum fqr the purpose. Experience <of the past has proved that jf OUr residents are appealed to in a big way (for a worthy object they wpl rise to the occasion,' and the present Carnival’ promoted by the. committee and splendidly organised by the headmaster and his staff is -dust another instance p.f what the Pukekohe people f can db when approached in the proper spirit The reason for the Carnival becomes successful is that the mothers of our boys gtris intensely in. terested 4 and I venture to say through thei'r efforts there qs scarcely a home individual or institution that has not contributed iff »ohlS way to the fuhds, flißy nave done this Willingly and gladly. so that the fefehbbl grounds and outbuildings will fee a credit jto our district and, a fitting environment for the boys and gins who will there equflip themselves for the battle of life. (Those who have had previous experience realise the tremendous amount of personal sacrifice demanded of those who are interesed in making these Carnivals a success. Therefore we can never be sufficiently grateful to tlie members of the various committees for the splendid result obtained through their efforts. The committees consist mainly of the ladies of our district* and I am sure we all hope the final result will be a gratifying and that it will in a small way repay them for their work and also for the many personal disappointments arising from the ordinary running of the Carnival. One of the most obvious of these will,, of course be the fact that of the seven candidates striving for the honour of being crownded Queen and only one can be successful. But the feeling - of disappointment from that cause will quickly disappear and soon forgotten and be replaced by a feeling of satisfaction that they have able to help on such a good cause. But while such disappointments can be expected they are totally different to distressing incidents such as the letter signed “Orphandom.” and appearing in your (issue of 29th ult. Anything so calculated to dishearten workers for the public welfare as the publication of that precious epistle would be hard l to imagine, and it is mystery to a greaf many (myself among the number) how you allowed it to appear in the Times, without bearing the signature of its author. I am one of many who hold the opinion that a real live paper operating in the district can exert a tremendous iynftuence for good. Its functions rightly used, moulds and directs, public opinion, exposes weakness should! be Known to exist, advertises the district favourably to the outside public, and at ail times will champion the cause of all that is best in our social and public life by doing so they can be of incalculable benefit to our dis. t'rict. But surely, Mr Editor, the publication of the letter referred ito by no stretch of imagination can be thought to benefit, either the worker,, the Orphan’s Club or the district I am sure you, Sir’ in common with the rest of the people of our town must have their sense of decency, shocked by the questionable taste shown by the writer., and must have been a severe test of you to the old tradition cf the freedom of the Press in passing it for publication. I have always held the opinion tnat if lone has a grievance the public Press lis the place to ventilate it, but a cowardly attack on our women-folk should not be tolerated. If these people must write such letters it is only fair to the rest of the community that you insert on their names being attached, by doing so you will not oqly preserve the freedom of the lifress but add to the glorious privilege of championing the cause cf our district the sacred trust of raising the standard of public teste, as the fact of having to sign their names to such letters it would cause them to alter their style, and think .twice about) having their names attached to Jetters attacking women!. —I am, etc j. ONLOOKER. (In reply to “Onlooker,’ we wish to st*Ce that though certain occasions .arise where a newspaper insists on the actual name of the writer being ‘published It is sometimes policy allow a nome-de-plume.” The Times does not identify itself with opinions expressed by correspondents. and provided letters are not obscene, libellous. or positively spxtdfiul, or wilfully injurious, allows a great deal of liberty to users of ji, s 3 correspondence columns. To withhold letters simply because their contents may be disagreed with % is not the policy of this journal. -Ed.. Tames).

(To the Editor). Sir, —I wish briefly to deny the allegation levelled! against me by a few gentlemen that my recent letter contained an “attack” on the gentleman therein referred to. Theie was nbthing in the words 1 used to cast any reflection whatever on that gentlemans and no such “■‘attack” was intended. It is not rather. Sir, tnat these gentlemen havq. after hastily reading my letter and assisted by their own knowledge, drawn certain inferences which they were not entitled to do, from my words, and wrongly substituting their inferences for my words have characterised same as an “attack.” I cannot be held responsible for the inferences which these gentlemen draw; that is their own responsibility. My sole point in mentioning te question of non-membership was this : There are, I beLevq, at least three members of the chub who have daughters representing Carnival Queens. Surely these Queens. I fancy should have a prior call on the members, As I understand r.he executive, upon being approached earlier in the session to support one particular Queen, decided to take no action in the matter, and I think wisely so. (To my mind the indiscretion in question was thereby intensely aggravated.—l am,

etc*

ORPHANDOM.

(To the Editor). > Sir.—l feel extremely diffident in asking you to gjrant me space in your columns to say a few words in regard to the above subject, meffe especially as it has been the outcome of a most .regrettable incident that took place at the club s regular meeting. As lam the oldest Or- j phan in this district and being one of the first to move in getting this branch established, and with the exception of two or three of our local members, my membership of Orphandom counts moire years,, than months, against the majority of our Pukekohe Club. .Therefore I wish to emphatically state that the club is not responsible in any way whatever for the sentiments expressed in the lettS? -signed , “Q-handfcm” in vour issue of Friday last, and my desire in writing thfes is to cleat*, up a wrong impression that is abroad that the club is “officially” responsible. Nothing of the kind. Any member has a perfect right to express his views upon any subject outside of the club and the letter signed “C. K Lawrie” on the above matter is not likely to make the situation any better. *He says that he can see no harm in ladies coming to our meetings is not the present correspondence in the “Times,” the result of the action of one. And I may just here say that although most or all of the clubs do now have a “ladies night,” it is and always has been a totally separate function to the ordinary session of the club. And, further., a ballot was taken if or quite a number of years before it was eventually decided 1 t'o have a ladies’ night in Auckland and: then only carried by a very small majority, and Mr Lawrie is wrong when he cites ProfesscSr Maxwell Walker, the Auckland president, in this connection, as I know positively he does not vote for ladies’ nights in regard to the club. And as Mr Lawrie sj letter may give, the impression that as the incident which took place at our meting, “was not quite in order,’ as he did not know if permission had been given. No one person nad any “official” right to do so, and as tne Orphan’s Club is exclusively a club for men only, it will no d/oubt save any further trouble if every member fully realises the fact, —I am eU " W. HURLE. (This correspondence is closed. — Ed.. Times).