CORRESPONDENCE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 558, 12 April 1913, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

Letters for publication, and articles for insertiomust be accompanied (not necessarily for pul:.cation), by the name of the writer, and, provided they are not offensive in any way, will be oublished as space permits. The Editor does lot identify himself with the opinions expressed ly correspondents, and accepts no responsibility or them.]

The Editor, Sir,—ln your issue of March 29th, apnears a letter signed by P. O'Dwyer and another signed by Ratepayer. It is really amusing how Ratepayer, who sometime ago, came to the rescue of Cr O'Dwyer has been the means of plunging him deeper into the mud than ever. To my question of the 19th, Ratepayer has given the most ridiculous reply he possibly could, and the amusing part is that he quotes Cr O'Dwyer's letter of the sth February as his auhority; a letter in which he state* that Cr O'Dwyer supports his statements with official facts and figures. Could anything be more absurd than this? Ratepayer also wants to know if I was not one of those who passed a very strong resolution protesting against the county council undertaking the expenditure of the grant under the conditions imposed by the Government. Why has he not stated which grant he refers to—l9ll or 1912. It is quite true that at a meeting held at Pio Pio about December 14th, 1912, at which the chairman of the County Council was present, I did support a resolution protesting against the County Council undertaking the expenditure of the 1912 grant, under the conditions imposed by the Government, and I can assure Ratepayer that had it not been that it would be but publishing our own disgrace, knowing that we had previously asked the Government to let the council have the expending of this money, I would have moved a resolution protesting against the Government handing over this money to the council, because that body had already proved by their method of handling the 1911 grants, that they were altogether incompetent to carry out the work. This was my real reason for supporting the resolution as it was framed, and I made no secret of it at the meeting. I might tell Ratepayer here, that his answer to mv question is absurd, and that any difference with the council is over the 1911 grant, a grant which the council already had in hand, of which they had been setting on for close on twelve months, and had only given us a few chains of metal. Your answer won't do, Ratepayer. Have another look over Cr O'Dwyer's letter of February stb, your only authority, and probably you might pick up some more information which might serve the purpose. It is really pathetic to see how Ratepayer, meaning to help Cr O'Dwyer, has been the means of dragging him down with him, and still stranger, to see them both, in their last drowning moments, clinging to trie same straw. Fancy these two men, one a ratepayer and the other a councillor, the latter who claims to have been almost unanimously elected, and yet neither of them know the contents of a certain letter without reading it. I wonder if someone were to fire a shot over their heads in Paemako, would they have to wait for the next Chronicle to know that it had happened. In my last letter I asked Cr O'Dwyer what he m«ant by Messrs Livingston and Co., and he answers that he might as well be plain about it and say what he suspects, "that those articles your correspondent supplies the public with are manufactured in another factory altogether, and have, I fear, only your correspondent's labal attached." To thi 3 I give an emphatic denial. I have written every letter in my own home and have never been assisted in any way, and I accept all responsibility thereof.—l am, etc., R. LIVINGSTON.