CORRESPONDENCE.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 11 May 1916, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Correspondence is invited onany matter of public interest. We do not, however, necessarily agree with, the views expressed by correspondents.]

THE HOT SPRINGS.

TO. THE EDITOE

Sir, —I notice in your last issue a very sensible letter from Mr Eddleston re the Hot Springs, and I also noticed a letter from Mr Field, criticising "Hot Springs." I do not intend to take up the cudgels for "Hot Springs," but I would ask space to refer to one sentence in Mr Field's letter, which shows what a grip he has got of the whole Domain Board affairs. He states : "If the Board had refused Mr Allen's offer, they would certainly not have blocked Mr Allen after spending a couple^of thousand pounds on the boarding-house and grounds ; he would. not have been baulked simply thiiß||i having to find another £50 or so -for drainage." Mr Field's estimate is as misleading as the .most of his statements in print are, or perhaps in this case he knows no better when he states £50." The cost would be over £200, but. £150 is a mere trifle to Mr Field. He then goes on to state that the Board were faced with the necessity of getting more water for their new baths, and if they did not arrange to receive Mr Allen's overflow, they would have had to spend a considerable amount on fresh boring, with the probability of failing to find a further supply. This latter- statement / should make the people interested in the Springs, stop to think, that is, if they take Mr Field seriously. That he thinks there is a shortage of water, and he also gives his opinion again as to the cost of boring, which is as misleading as the one about the cost of draining, but he covers the latter estimate with the word " considerable," so as to throw dus* in the eyes of the people. There was one bore running to waste at the time referred to, and a cost of £6 per bore would have got all the water required. The main point I wish to allude is that some six or seven years ago, when a grant was applied for, Sir Joseph Ward raised an objection on the grounds that there was not sufficient water to warrant the expenditure. The then Board had to prove to the Government that plenty of water could be got, and although we successfully established the fact that there is plenty of water, the present Chairman of the Board (without any knowledge whatever on the matter) insinuates that water could not be got, just because he wished to reply to "Hot Springs"; never mind at what cost to the Springs or the people, so long as he thinks he is making his point good. Only a few months ago Mr Field did not know how the water was procured for watering the Bowliug Green. That being the case, it will be seen how far his opinions are of value to the people interested in the Springs.—l am, etc:,'

James McLeod.

[We have received two other letters from the same writer in reference to correspondence appearing in our last issue, but, arriving late, they will have to stand over till next issue.—Ed.]