CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 10, 10 May 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of thb " Evening Mail."

Sir— l was in hopes that tho article which appeared in your columns in connection with the Tararua disaster bb to the necessity of a rocket apparatus on board steamen . would have caused some discussion from those parties thoroughly conversant with the subject, and whose duty if not interest would have prompted them to ventilate the matter. However, as they have not done so I consider it my duty to once more caU the attention of the public and also the authorities to the subject. I have made some enquiries, and I find that the expense of such an apparatus would be about £10, while the room that the same would occupy is nil. I would also call your readers' attention to the evidence of Captain Sundstrum of the Kakanui, who there states that he might have taken a lino ashore wilh rockets, and the probability therefore ia that had the Tararua been supplied with such an apparatus at all [events some attempt could have been made by those on board to save life. Whether successful or not I must leave your readers to judge from the evidence, hut in my opinion it is extremely probable. Such being the case, I consider it the bounden duty of every man to agitate the public mind until useful and inexpensive reforms like the present are carried out. As to life buoys, .they are in my opinion an absolute necessity, and as such all steamers should be compelled to carry teem, as the Te Anau and larger boats do. With regard to the pouring of oil to windward that has been often known to have the effect of immediately calming the sea, and one instance that I know was the clipper Kent, from Melbourne to London in 1862, off the Horn waß saved from foundering mostly by the use of oil. However," as* the Hon Mr Waterhouse in the N.Z. Mail has kindly drawn the public attention, and given good authorities for other instances, I sb»U not

now trespass further on your space, and with thanks for your remarks, I am, &c. W. C.

To the Editor of thb "Evening Mail."

Sir,— My attention baa been called, to ft letter in your last evening's issue signed " Wm. R. E. Brown, Registrar-General," in which he uses my name pretty freely. Notwithstanding tho rule that public servants are under ordiuary circumstatieeß precluded from becoming hewspaper correspondents— a rule which I have hitherto strictly observed— wheu I find no less a personage than the Registrar-Genera! afflicted with the cacctlhes scribendiy aud making his official utterances through the columns of your journal* and seeing that the matter at issue is purely a personal one between thfc Registrar-General and myself, I feel that I beed scarcely apologise fot troubling jou with a few brief comments on Mr Brown's direct personal references to myself. Mr Brown says that he has not charged mo with falsehood, although ho has equal ground for suoh a charge. This is indied kindness and forbearance itself, and when Mr Brown goes on to say that he " givee me ciedit for truth," I feel that for euch a testimonial to my character, coming as it dcea from a " Government officer," and, I r resume, "a man of honor '* to wit, I should be deeply grateful.

Now, with reference to the note 16 the Registrar-General's repoit, about which there has been so much tiouble, Mr Brown says that it has been in the report for many months, and bad I objected to it the objection could have been made long ago. True, and hal I written to him and asked him to 1 explain the meaning of the note, or of, say " Hydrocepbalus," or " Endocarditis," or any other, to me, unintelligible portion of the report, he would, no doubt, have been courteous enough to answer my letter; but I did cot conceive it my duty to do 60, nor should I now have troubled 'you or him had he not written to me in refereuce to the first paragraph published by you, to which you have already alluded.

Your 9, &c, 11. V. Gully,