CORRESPONDENCE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 547, 5 March 1913, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

Letters for publication, and articles for insertion, must be accompanied (not necessarily for publication), by the name of the writer, and, provided they are not offensive in any way, will be -lublished as space permits. The Editor does lot identify himself with the opinions expressed iy correspondents, and accepts no responsibility or them.J

The Editor.

Sir,—As an Englishman who haa resided a few years in tbis part of the Dominion, I cannot help thinking that this very often used term "British Fair Play" is highly boomed, at least in this part of the King Country, and that those gentlemen who use it most practice it least. Take, for instance, our local public men, how they are slandered under the guise of public criticism, men whom I know to be losing time and incurring expense in trying to further the interests of this district. It is not so very long go since there was a vile charge levelled at those men of misappropriating public money. 1 am one of those who thought at the time that there might be some semblance of truth in this charge until I read Gr O'Dwyer'a letter in reply which completely tore this fabrication into shreds. It is disgusting to any right thinking persun to see people making spiteful charges and making no attempt to prove them. By all means let there be criticism, but let it be fair and of the right kind. J think councillors as a whole are lacking in duty to the ratepayers in keeping, I suppose what they term, a dignified silence, when accusations are levelled against them, but what I call a dignified negligence to us because after all we are not all councillors and have not the opportunity of knowing the inner workings of the council, and therefore must to some extent, be guided by what we see in public print. So far as I am concerned, Cr O'Dwyer'a letter has done more to enlighten me re county affairs than all the reports I have read of county meetings for the last few years. Ido not know from what cause it is that councillors maintain such a deliberate silence. They may not be all able to wield the pen as logically as Gr O'Dwyer. Nevertheless, it is their duty to the public to answer and refute baselesß charges.—l am, etc. RATEPAYER.

The Editor.

Sir, —In your last issue of tho Chronicle there is another challenge issued by Mr Livingston to myself. It is the second fwithih a few weeks from that erratic young gentleman, and lam at a loss to" know what to ascribe it to, if not the Erecocity of youth Perhaps it might be that he is hurt over the exposure of those little fairy tales of hi*B, and in his blind rage because I nailed them to the counter of public opinion he blunders along with another of those idiotic challenges. Well, sir, I cannot accept this any more than I could his first one. In the first place, if 1 did, it would be a very poor compliment to the intelligence of the ratepayers, who almost unanimously elected me for the second time a little over twelve months ago. In the second place, I would not be worthy of the position I hold were I to be intimidated by every Tom, Dick and Harry who consider themselves entitled to issue challenges indiscriminately. Sir, your correspondent has a very bad memory, and also is very inconsistent, but perhaps, it might be the old story of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Your correspondnt originally wrote to your paper stating his fight was not with Cr O'Dwyer, but it is now evident I was the object of interest. Apparently Messrs Livingston and Co, are casting longing eyes on my seat in the council, but it could scarcely be expected that I would accommodate this very limited company. I am quite well aware that I never had the confidence of this limited concern, who gave at the last election a very fine sample intelligence re county affairs in nominating a candidate against rap who was not eligible, and who created a considerable amount of amusement in galivanting around the district canvassing against me some days after I was duly elected. Sir, I stated in a previous letter that this very inconsistent correspondent of yours makes an attempt to blow hot and blow ™ld. In one letter his fight is not with me, and in the next he says that he is precluded from replying to me. Well, sir, I did not know that this vituperation of his was such that you had to exclude it from the columns of your paper, but I suppose editors are like doctors and lawyers, and therefore it is useless to try and probe into their professional secrets. —I am, etc., P. O'DWYER. Paemako, February 25th, 1913.