Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1906. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3706, 30 August 1906, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1906. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Have you ever thought seriously what the result of an outbreak of fire in Foxton —in the main thoroughfare—would mean ? The fiery elements favoured with a wind from the right quarter would make a clean sweep of the town. This doesn’t seem pleasant reading, but it’s true. What an unequal fight the townspeople wouid have combating the flames with a limited supply of water per medium of a bucket brigade. New buildings have recently been erected and additions made to existing buildings at a cost of thousands of pounds, and yet we don’t hear one voice raised re a water supply for fire prevention purposes. The time has arrived for the Borough Council to take a firm grip of this question. As a matter of fact water and drainage is of prior importance to lighting—although the latter is very desirable. There is at the present moment in Foxton a civil engineer who, we understand, is well versed on water supply matters. Could not the Council engage him to report on the subject? We hold no brief for this gentleman —haven’t even seen his credentials —but we are informed that these can be produced. We refer to Mr R. E. Clouston, M.E.) of Dunedin and Wellington. We feel it our duty to direct public attention to this question and commend the suggestion to the consideration of the Council. * * *

Speaking of the grant of ,£6OOO proposed to be given to Mrs Seddon, the Wellington Post says : “ When a man lays down his life for his country, it is not to his discredit that his body may require public help to take it to the grave; and it was no discredit to Sir Harry Atkinson that, from the remuneration which he had received for his public services, he had not been able to make sufficient provision for his family. It was on this ground, and not for the commemoration or reward of that service, that his widow received a grant of ,£3OOO ; and we are able to say that it was only after a close and very proper scrutiny of her pecuniary position.

that the grant was made. In the case of Mr Ballance, it could not be suggested that two years of the Premiership had given him an equal claim with the far more prolonged labours of his predecessor, if that element had entered into the competition ; but, on the principle that Mrs Ballance’s need was as great as Lady Atkinson’s, the same grant was, on Mr Seddon’s own motion, extended to her. Is Sir Joseph Ward going to tell us that there is any poverty to relieve in the present case ? or, in the absence of the only ground which has been recognised hitherto, is he going to create a new and invidious and a most disastrous precedent ? ”