CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1293, 8 March 1883, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not held ourselves responsible tor the opinions expressed by our correspondents]. ... .io:—TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your report of the Harbor Board you make Mr Tucker to bring forward the proposal of valuing Messrs Common Shelton and Co. 's property, and then allowing them so many years occupation, as compensation. Your contemporary, the Herald, makes Captain ” Chrisp to do this. Which is right ? You again report a “Mr ” Chrisp, the Herald, a “ Captain ” Chrisp ; are they different person, or the same ; and if the same, which is he, (Chrisp) entitled to be called “ Captain "or “ Mr." lam &0., Veriti, [Our reporter is right. The suggestion was made by Mr Tucker. Mr Chrisp however did make an explanatory remark when spoken to, in conversation, by one of the members of the Board, and whilst seated, in relation to the proposal, but this was after Mr Tucker had spoken. As to the title, we quote from a dictionary beside us the definition of “ Captain ” given “ The commander of a ship of war, troop of horse, or company of foot. ” Our correspondent may now study as to whether, or not, the title should be given to the gentleman he alludes to.— Ed. P.B.S.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —The Common, Shelton &, Co., question again occupied the attention of the Harbor board on Tuesday night last. Why so much of their time should be wasted on this subject when the question is so simple, I cannot tell. The only thing for the Board to consider is: Is Common, Shelton & Co.'s claim a just and lawful one? This question must certainly be answered in the negative. They have been occupying a most advantageous site for years, for which they owe the ratepayers a considerable amount of money, but instead of seeking to make term, as to the sum and condition of payment of this indebtedness to the ratepayers, they assume the aggressive, and actually ask the Board (ratepayers) to remunerate them, and to buy and pay them for their (the Board’s) own property. No doubt Messrs Common, Shelton and Co. thought they had done a clever thing when they obtained. the agreement from the Board. It showed of what sort of men our Council was composed, and certainly proves that they must have been deficient of either sense or honesty, and had betrayed the trust the ratepayers had reposed in them. Fortunately the agreement can never be enforced, and is, 1 believe, entirely useless. What they mean by accepting “ any compromise which may be suggested,” provided “ we secure equal value to ourselves,” Ido not know, unless it is they do not object to receive the “ equal value” in notes instead of gold. This appears to be the sort of “ compromise ” they have no objection to. Now, if Messrs C.S. & Co., were poor and struggling men it would be a lenient act to forgive them the amount they owe to the ratepayers, but as they are wealthier than the greater portion of the ratepayers the Board should certainly enforce payment. Let the agreement (which is legally useless) be entirely ignored, let the monies due to the ratepayers be paid, and then if Messrs C. 8. & Co , can show they have sustained any loss or damage by or through any action of the Board s, or through any untoward or unforseen circumstances, let them petition the Board to consider their case from a considerate and charitable point of view, and not to make a persistent and clamorous demand on what, no one better than themselves know to be a groundless and unjust claim.— Yours, etc., Can't See It.