Correspondence.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 229, 6 October 1905, Page 2

Correspondence.

[While freely opening our oolnmna for hh. duennioa of public mxl-ter. .. 4o m, necessarily idan/fy ouroelvee with aav •pinto ' exprwaed by oorrMpott'U&te. 6 ibis to be distinctly under* A Kinohaka correspondent has fore warded $ paragraph about some ’ trivial accident, which is evidently writtan with the idea of hurting the feerugs of the person alluded to. 1 The author’s signature does not appear, c msequcmlyjt has found a place io the w.p. basket.”

COUNTY COUNCIL MATTERS.

(to the editor.) Six, —Be “ Impartial Onlooker?’ ” loiter in your last issue. I 'ail to see bow they draw thair conclusion that ‘ B B. & R.” have the bast of the argument with “Alert.” “Alert” contended iha*, 8.8. & R. had anjostly criticised Cc H. Shaw (or not getting more money placed on che schedule of proposed l»ao.d fur Taharoa Riding They (B B. & R.) admit they have b_»en unjust lo Cr 11. Shaw, b/cause sbey4sad omitted to mention Widening wi ie.-.i jg ibe Maboeuui Ro»d; but -vhlst making that admission they dg iGf credit the l‘<th »roa &aiug *. h forming a 16 t. road tana Mahoenuie G »ast Ju maun to Lemon Point Road. Why not? the G »vernmaat placing a small sum at naoney on the Estimates canon convinc: “ Lmpariiai Onlookers” that 8.8. A R knew th »t tbay were wn-mg «bout D >es ths fac: of the Governmet| j.aciDg th it sinUl am -.trit on .a-, c, • rimv-es prove that “ Alert ” has b-.ien nishd, or j is ify 8.8 A R.’s unju-| mj -nt criticism of Cr Shaw. Be tbg q iaction of roads in the Taharoa Rijn ing b-ing veoutitud, aji J y people b tva * g ’>l i<La of wnat »ugb j to be, it w-j.ild nave pleased mm? -f 8.8. A R. had miapted Aiert’asigg, tion of fi Jisbt »g rue argameoi 1Q a public place, ias etdof ruoniug away m 1 ending tba c »rcesp mden - staring that “ we wo nd o t Co t j < , for »mo neat or acaip a cnallajg.. o raaki a tn »u itain »o>; if * non • —the -aid mole hid wosatti, CJnu meuce ns.it of tua c «ti .t «••! y i g. r ta . : io m-mnUia a ;til “ Aie~t ” commea;sd exctvatiag. Tj» ! :M q, W5< ri oo >frotds ia the Tva aro . g,j b M smfa ly ventilated, bat I contend Qal; U has not, b*jaa<e wtwo 4 tt. r«Ply to “ Alert’s ” i Ht «e they stated ibat “these are oof r<e marks” therefore “ Alert/' wtl iut grs ti°? that they have thrown down thrir pan, ais > throws down his. I think ” Impartial Onlookers ” have been rather bas:y in c -ruing io lbs oonclurim that 8.8. & R. have tho best off he argument. Before judging let us, in justice to “ Alert,” fully look into bi? side of the quoad jo, and io that eu I would suggest that 8.8. & Ross accept J ‘ Alert’s ” challenge.— Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY.