CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 112, 12 May 1874, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

* Wo are desirous of affording every reasonable facility Tor the diaousßiou of publio subjects; but it must be understood that we arc in no way responsible tor the opinions expressed y correspondents.

To the Editor or the Evening Mail. Sir — Mr Pitt's letter in last night's Mail raises a false issue, and departs from the question in dispute. The worda in italicß I disclaim. M** statement was "That the old Waimea Road Board wa** superseded one year and ten months ago by a new Board elected under the Highways Act; that the bye-laws of the Board were Bent to the Government for confirmation. When it was found no provision had been made in the Act to allow Boards to frame bye-laws an amended Act was paseed in the next session. Yet up to the present time the bye-laws submitted to the Government had not been confirmed." Mr Pitt's reply was "Tbat I had made an in correct statement, as the letter enclosing the bye-3aws was dated February 10, 1874, and was placed in his hands on the 24th of April." When I rose to explaia that this was the second copy sent, it was ruled by the Speaker I was out of order. Mr Pitt's challenge of my statement appeared In your paper, eo it was only just to myself to let your readers know that Mr Thompson could certify that a copy of the bye-laws had been previously sent to the Government. This statement is proved by Mr Pitt himself in publishing the correspondence. In conclusion, I may say some good has been done in puttiug the Executive on their mettle, for the bye-laws were attended to on the day after the notice of motion was given, which shows the necessity of continually applying the spur. I am, &(\, Wilm-M Rout