THE HOSPITAL AT PAEROA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5445, 8 July 1929, Page 2

THE HOSPITAL AT PAEROA.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l crave space in your valued columns to voice my disapproval of a name which I consider is erroneously applied to the hospital nearing completion at Paeroa. I, like l many others, have always been under the impression that money was originally subscribed by the public to help pay for the building of an institution which was to be known as the Nurse PennellMemorial Hospital. The name intended was to perpetuate the memory of one who was ever the friend of the sick and needy; and who, by her kindly, self-sacrificing attentions, was the means of bringing comfort into many a suffering home. As a constant reader of your paper I notice that invariably the hospital is referred to as the “Paeroa” Hospital. I really think that it should be given its correct name, the one which it was originally intended to be called.

INTERESTED.

[The money collected had to be handed over to the Thames Hospital Board without any conditions, otherwise it would not have carried a subsidy from the Government. That is why the name was dropped. In order to perpetuate the memory of Nurse Pennell it is proposed to dedicate the maternity portion of the hospital as a memorial to the late nurse. —Ed.] NETHERTON FLOOD-GATE. Sir, —In reading your report of the Netherton Drainage Board of July 5 concerning the proposed flood-gate I was much surprised at the attitude adopted by two of the members. It is unfortunate that this matter has got into print, as it does not do justice to the settlers or represent the position fairly, and is embarrassing to the far-sighted and fate members of the board. The attitude of these two, if correctly reported, is a direct attempt at stonewalling the proposal. Mr Chester asserts that the location is considered a secondary matter. I ask, by whom ? He continues as it would prevent unanimity in the request for a flood-gate. My reply is that the request has always had the unanimous support of the settlers, and any open-eyed man can see the necessity for it. Mr Reid says the place chosen is wrong, and the installation would be a menace to the whole area. I sympathise with him in his short-sightedness. Does Mr Reid place his opinion before the opinions and requirements of the settlers ? As to being a menace, I would refer him to the two nearest flood-gates north and south of the proposed one. Are they a menace ? I say they will stand as a monument to the Public Works Department who installed them.

The question arose, “Why was the petition signed ?” Again Mr Reid butts in to the effect that the settlers are not capable of holding an opinion of their own and would sign anything. The petition was signed for the very good reason that practically the whole utility of the flood-gate depends on the sand dump site being chosen. If placed at the bridge close to and north of the Ohinemuri intersection it would most probably be choked with silt and driftwood, which collects there. Mr Reid gives the whole of the credit to Drain H for getting the water off the land. The settlers on Ngarahi Road will bear me out when I say that the land which was sweet wheft the original floodgates existed is now three parts waste owing to water weeds. The Waihou River is the Creator’s drainage, and it is our business, through the board, to get the water into it by the shortest route possible. In conclusion, I wish to thank the chairman and his supporters for their decision to give us the best possible drainage until the wet months are oven

A. BAIN.