CORRESPONDENCE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2659, 15 November 1923, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

(To The Editor 4

Sir. —In your last issue, commenting on the last Council meeting, I am supposed to have said “that the Beautifying Society had stated that they could not have a swimming baths and beautifying on Easton Park.” 1 never said anything of the sort, and can give ample proof of that statement. 1 stated that a majority of the Committee came to a public meeting arid voted in favour of baths in Easton Park. I stated that the members did the right thing in voting that way which practically meant a withdrawal of any opposition to sport. You also accuse me of a desire to foment a spirit of opposition to the baths site. That statement is a complete unwarranted invention. At a public meeting I said that I would support the site chosen by the ratepayer-. Tn accordance with that promise at our monthly meeting I moved two resolutions, viz., a motion to rescind the resolution adopting the foreshore site, and the other one to construct swimming baths at a suitable site in Easton Park, subject to loan proposal being carried. The Council passed both resolutions. Where is your proof of an attempt by me to stir up opposition? Do you not think it is high time that yon dropped your present policy calculated to stir up strife and bitterness in the community and work harmoniously for the common good of our citizen-?, Your etc. JOHN CHRYSTALL.

[AT last Council meeting the Beautifying Soeety’s letter, which was an official declaration, was read to the effect that the Society was willing to carry out Mr BJaek’s original scheme on Easton Park. The Mayor in commenting on the letter, said that at the ratepayers meeting to decide swimming baths site, the Beautifying Society had been represented by a majority of its members who “withdrew any opposition re games being played on Easton Park, and had very wisely decided that they could not have beautifying and swimming baths together in Easton Park. Baths on Easton Park represented sport. By supporting a baths proposal, the Beautifying Society supported sport, not beautifying, on the Park. This showed inconsistency on behalf of that Society.” So much for the Mayor’s process of deduction, but it seems useless to impress upon the Mayor that members were present as ratepayers, only, and that their action in no way compromised the Beautifying Society. Ho might as well say that the Racing Club, School Committee, Hospital Board, etc., who had representatives in attendance, by sueli illogical reasoning, were also compromised! We reiterate that the Mayor has endeavoured to foment opposition to Easton Park as a baths site. Surely that was made manifest to all at the meeting. Why did lie, plead and wriggle with the meeting to support his proposal for the Council site as against Easton Park backed by extravagent statements re pumping costs and destruction of shrubs, etc.? We can assure the Mayor that we have no desire to stir up strife and bitterness in the community. On the contrary, our desire is to promote the welfare and happiness of the people aud the advancement of the town, and, if possible, to open the eyes of the Mayor to a wider vision in that connection. —Ed. H.]