CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1118, 9 August 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed by our correspondents.] TO THE EDITOR, Sir,—A short time ago a letter appeared in your columns signed “ Mud ” drawing attention to the bad state of Grey-street. Now Sir, I must also certainly assert it is very bad, as also are the footpaths, and the least the Borough Council could do is to shovel a few loads of gravel on them, so ns to enable persons to travel backward and forward without getting up to their knees in slush ; but it is not only those two parts that are neglected, and it is to another I wish to draw the attention of the City Fathers, who seem to know everything, and at the same time know nothing. The footpath in question is that in Palmerston Road, running past the property of Mr A. Y. Robs. There, if one of the members of that, grout and learned council, would kindly just, take a look he would see directly in the middle of the path—well if not a river, something very like it. This stream runs down for about twenty or thirty yards, and then branches off, and flows on to the road. Really I think a load of gravel or some such stuff placed there would not go amiss ; but, on the other hand, if the present state of things is allowed to continue, the footpath, I may say, in that part, will soon be as the others previously mentioned.—l am Ac., Wet Feet. CAPT. TUCKER’S REPLY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD. Sir, —It is amusing to road Capt. Tucker’s reply to my letter. I will give Capt. Tucker credit for being able to make a bold defence. The wily strain which can be traced through all his writings entitles him to be ranked as a thoughtful man, hut Capt. Tucker should bear in mind that the Poverty Bay public are not so blind as to be unable to detect the strain in which he writes. In his reply to my letter he tries to substantiate his former assertions, ! but makes a miserable failure ; he says, “ to j avoid misappruhimsion by Truth, my ehro- i

nology is roughly”--he certainly may term it “ roughly,” for “ rough ” it is, as will bo seen by any person who minutely peruses his epistle. Capt. Tucker knows as well as Ido that it is quite sufficient that Kidd was hand and glove with the Poverty Bay misrepresented Salvation Army, or, in other words, the Repudiation party, of which Capt. Tucker was, and is, one ; and that Kidd acted throughout in unison with them. Capt. Tucker also knows how very efficiently Kidd acted whenever the Repudiation party was interested ; Capt. Tucker may also be aware of the many rebukes given to Kidd (solely through that). Capt. Tucker will possibly discover why Kidd was removed, if he studies the above. Ido not wish to cause Capt. Tucker to blush, as he professes to be so infallible, but any person who would take the trouble to look over Capt. Tucker’s published writings, could at once come to the conclusion that he interested himself very much in the matter which caused all the discussion, otherwise he could not have given it so full, and still so erroneous, expression as he has done ; but common sense forbids that the public should be compelled to admit his statements as Truth.