CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VII, Issue 116, 16 May 1872, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

*** We are desirous of affording every reasonable facility for the discussion of public subjects; but it must be understood that we are in no wav responsible for the opinions expressed by correspondents. To the Editor of the Nelson Evening Mail. Sir — In the discussion on the Lunatic Asylum in the Provincial Council the other evening, Mr. Shephard said that it would be a cruel heartless thing to bring prominently before the public the names of poor persons suffering from mental_ bereavement. With all due deference to Mr. Shephard, I beg to differ from him. I consider the public ought to have the fullest possible information in all matters appertaining to public institutions. Poverty is not a crime ; neither is lunacy a disgrace. Every right thinking man knows that by making public the names of those suffering from mental bereavement no slur is meant to be cast upon their friends. Charitable institutions should not be shrouded in secrecy. They are supported by the public, and the public have a right to know what is going on in them and how the money is spent. I am, &c, Taxpayer. The Port, Nelson. 1 — T n <~TTBi-1 To the Editor op the Nelson Evening Mail. Sir — Though Mr. Luckie's amendment on Mr. Collins motion was carried the other night the victory was ambiguous. Very few such would equal several defeats. Mr. Luckie's amendment is simply Mr. Collins motion stripped of unnecessary prickles, and, as representing the very best that Mr, Fox's most thoroughgoing supporter can induce impartial persons to assent to, is more effective than the motion, which might have been held to contain the worst that an out-and-out opponent could, make out. How entirely Mr. Luckie felttthis is

evident from the abusive eipthets — "Tony Lumpkin" appears to have been the mildest — which ths usually courteous Mr. Luckie heaped upon Mr. Collins. We have been pretty plainly told lhat, unless we return representatives agreeable to tbe Government, we shall come off ill in the distribution of the borrowed money. This is very likely true, but will the electors of Nelson allow themselves to be bullied in this fashion into returning a Ministerial nominee ? Mr. Fox's application of the Public Works fund on the West Coast ia probably meant as a foretaste of what we must expect if we are not obedient. Whether Mr. Richmond or Mr. Saunders be elected matters little ; but we do waut a representative who can neither be cajoled nor bullied — such a one as we believed Mr. Luckie to be when he advocated economy and retrenchment, and when his keenness ia scenting out a job was only equalled by his scientific worrying of jobbers. Then he opposed loans ; then all public works stunk in his nostrils. Then ho was public virtue incarnate. How different is it now that a Fox is the offender ? An Electoe.