CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1076, 15 March 1913, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —Kindly allow me to make an explanation in connection with your report of the 13th as to last Monday’s Council meeting, re Town Hall supper room. Now, sir, my notice of motion originated as follows : A little time back the parishioners of St. Mary’s Church desired to farewell their priest, the Rev. Father Kelly, and on going to the Town Clerk to engage the supper room for the purpose, were informed that they could have it, with use of piano, for 223 6d, This was considered exhorbitaut and I was interviewed as a Councillor over the matter. I went to the Town Clerk about it and he courteously informed me that the Council had failed to place in the schedule of hall charges anything for his guidance as to supper room charges other than for committee and club meetings, and he would like to see the Council alter the schedule and amend the prices in this particular. Thus my motion. When writing my motion I added, for the guidance of the meeting, the words “valedictory socials, etc.,” with prices 5s and 7s 6d. This the Mayor refused as he said he would only take the words in the original motion, and on reading the motion he moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Coley, to read £1 by day, and 30s by night. This amendment was defeated.' When Cr. Adams moved his counter motion and also moved that the Council should give me permission to put in the word “add” which they carried, I was rather surprised at such an old Councillor doing this, as that only made matters worse and made the motion read to add to the prices already fixed. So the Council decided to go back to the motion I had written out previously at the table; When Coun- , cillor Speirs moved another amendment, Councillor Whibley moved its suspension. The Mayor, who had shown animus to my motion all through, grasped this like a drowning man grasps at a straw, put it to the meeting and declared it carried calling for the “Ayes” and not calling for the “Noes.” I objected to this ruling and told him that business .was, I believed often done, I was sorry,to say, unbeknown to tbs Council table, Which he answered in his I flurry, “Ves, there was.” This, sir, is what I have objected to right through, that business that should come before the Council and be passed by resolution, has been done aud not appearing on the minute book or been passed by resolution of the Council. I have endeavoured during my term of office to bring forward several progressive measures, that members have admitted were progressive, and yet voted against them. —I am, etc., H. W. Richmond. [Gun correspondent’s version, as stated above, is not correct. What really happened was that Cr Richmond had a notice of motion which read, “that the prices be amended for Town Hall supper room.” When this was brought forward for discussion it was pointed out that what the mover really wanted was to add further prices, not to amend those at present on the schedule. By consent of the meeting Cr Richmond was permitted to glter his motion to

read that farther prices be added, and in the amended form it was put and carried. Cr Richmond then moved a motion dealing with the letting of the supper room for purposes other than committee and club meetings. To this two amendments were moved and lost and a councillor was proceeding to write a further amendment, when another councillor moved that the Council proceed to the next business. This was carried and the next business proceed with, hi'-H.j

(To the Editor.'!

Sir. —With your kind permission I would like to contradict the statement made by E. G. Martin in ThurscLj s issue of your journal. He says, “that Mr Holland never said that Evans never possessed a revolver,” Could E. G. Martin truthfully say he was present and heard the statements made. With a dear conscience I am sure he could not. He is still ot opinion that the press has misrepresented the affairs at Waihi. Perhaps he knows no better. I will leave that point to the verdict of your readers. Now, sir, could this E. G, Martin name any newspaper in this Dominion wherein it is stated that the bullet had been extracted from Constable Wade. I am absolutely sure he could not do this either ? Also, does he know that 894 signatures appeared on that petition presented to the House for police protection. Apparently your correspondent does not approve of ray opinions in reference to these so-called labour leaders, and claims it to be an insult to the workers of this community. Perhaps they are to his stamp ot workers, and what I object to, and what any honourable man would also, is such individuals not speaking the truth when they do step on the platform or deliver an open-air address. He answered to a portion of my letter, viz., whether the people of Foxton appreciate such stuff, by saying the patient hearing accorded them during their visit here is good enough. But, did those handful of people constitute the majority of Foxton’s townspeople ? He also states that I have taken the coward’s refuge and am afraid to give utterances openly. Well, sir, I would, like any honest man, rather write under a nom-de-plume and tell the truth, than sign my name to untruthful statements such as the one your correspondent has made. Perhaps he wants to appear as the great gun before the eyes ot the public by signing his name, but evidently he has no conscience or he could not have done this, knowing as he must do, it to be a deliberate falsehood. And I can assure him that I have solid grounds for my statements, which are not “facts” as he terms them. Well, sir, the time is not far distant when the workers, even in this community, will realise the object of these individuals, but before it is too late study the whole problem and then you will see who is on the right track. Thanking you for your space.—l am, etc., Worker.