A REPLY TO “SATURDAY NIGHT” SCENE,

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3494, 9 March 1905, Page 3

A REPLY TO “SATURDAY NIGHT” SCENE,

TO THE EDITOR 03P THE MAN A'VATU HERALD Sin, —I beg to reply to the ietu signed Disgusted ” appearing in your last issue and to say that in my Hum opinion the several charges lau; against the inhabitants of Foxton ar grossly exaggerated. “ Disgusted’s" (1 think it would have been more manlv to have signed his proper name, no. anonymously) first charge is that Sun day is becoming th# most boisterou day of the week etc. Now sir I hav. lived for some time past in Foxton, bu whatever might have been in tb. earlier days certainly does not now exist The new Licensing Act has completely eradicted that complaint, for the local hotelkeepers will not serve anyone, in fact yon don’t sei people hanging about licensed premises on account of the stringent operations of Section 43, to the great satisfaction of the hotelkeeper who is able to en joy his Sunday’s rest. Now as to the charge about the rich man giving choicest parties I can only infer that he alludes to several persons, who, taking advantage of the lovely weathe. (after a long spell of bad) go down to the Manawatu Heads and make up picnic parties sometimes in boats others by drays, traps etc. Well poses as a “ Christian ” him go down and nkewise, He will find a immunity that believes in enjoying the Sabbath which Vv£s Shade far man not otherwise, J how came to Saturday’s Scene. Well “ Disgusted ” must have got tangled up on that occasion. There was a meeting of the Salvation Army in Main street and their sßrvices were not in any Why interfered with. The loGal constables patrolled the Streets and as I am informed certainly saw nothing nor heatd anything of the events referred to by “ Disgusted." Had such a thing occurred the court would have been summoned on the following Monday morning to deal with such offenders, butdoiibtless to "Disgusted's “ stlrprise there was no person Atreitea last Saturday night, or even Sunday. Consequently no court was required. If the things had occurred as stated by '• Disgusted ’’ why did he not as a Christian go straight away and inform the police. Certainly not, as he had no grounds, Foxton In the past, like other Up ebuntry townships, has had an uneviable record but “ Disgusted ” by his letter does hot in any way indicate a better state of things—rather otherwise. He should remember the old adage that it is a dirty bird that fouls its nest. By bis anonymous name " Disgusted ” screens himself but from the tone he may be closely associated with a certain resident who admits he likes his “ tot ” also “ glass ” but is determined to support Prohibition. In conclusion if “ Disgusted." replies to my letter and gives his real name I am prepared to give mine. Apologising for taking up such space—l am, etc., A Foxton Resident. DEBATING SOCIETY AFFAIRS. TO THE EDITOR OE THE MANAWATU HERALD Sir, —I desire to make an explanation and correction with regard to a statement appearing in a report of the last meeting of the Debating Society, to the effect that “ several members Objected to the chairman characterising one member’s argument as ‘a quibble.’ ” I may say in the first place that the secretary had no authority to insert this in the report, unless he did so as a representative of the press. In any case it is not a correct account of what occurred. In the capacity of chairman I did refer to a proposal by one of the members as a quibble, but no one raised any objection to my action. I have since learned that my use of the word has aroused a little soreness on the part of the member to whom it was addressed, I very much regret that such an impression should have been conveyed. Had I known the expression would have caused offence, I should most certainly have avoided using it. Trusting these remarks will help to clear up any misapprehension that may have arisen.—l am, etc., W. E. Barnard.