Hunua Hall.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 221, 27 October 1916, Page 1

Hunua Hall.

[TO THE EDITOR. 1 Sir,—l notice in your issue of the 17th inst. a letter from "D.M. " re the above. I would suggest that it would be wise for " D.M. " to go to a more reliable source for his information before saying too much through the medium of the Press, as it is clear from his le.ter that he knows very little about the facts of the case.

" D.M. " says " Shareholder and Mr Lockwood should have held a consultation to avoid contradicting one another," yet he does not show a single instance in which there is contradiction.

I take it, when " D.M." says " I could not join a brotherhood of that calibre," he simply refers to his unwillingness to have a say in a thing of that sort until it is made a public concern; and does not in any way intend to cast any reflection on the characters of the men involved, so I will deal wiih him purely from this point of view. "D.M." wants to see the Hall a " public " concern. Perhaps it would be more consistent on his part if he got a few of his friends together to buy the Hall. He could, I am sure, have it at a very reasonable figure, and certainly at a lower figure than the cost to the shareholders', plus 5 per cent per annum on their outlay. He would then be in a position to show how the nail could be made public; or if he does not want to do that he could build a hall of his own at his own expense, as the Hunua Hall shareholders did. His scheme for making the Hall public could then be tried, and if it is a success see how much credit would be due to j him.

11 D.M." evidently believes in a cheap article. We don't blame him as most of us like to got all we can for nothing, This is exactly what " D.M." wants to do in regard to the Hall. The Hall was built by the shareholders entirely at their own expense, and now " D.M." has the audacity to suggest that the outside public, who have not contributed one brass farthing to it, either in labour, material or cash, should have as much say as the people who bore the whole of the expense. Later on " D.M." says " this is supposed to be a public hall, built by the shareholders, the settlers giving posts and blocks, free labour and site free." They did to all practical purposes, for the only consideration they received v for the posts, labour, etc., was a £1 share for every £l's worth of labour or material so contributed. It will clearly be seen from this that the " good old settlers " referred to and the shareholders are one and the same. So there is no very great crime in the shareholders taking complete possession of their own property. As regards "D.M.V statement that the public were called on to wipe off a heavy debt that at one time existed, there is absolutely no truth in that statement, for the Hall was never at any time in debt, and in fact is distinctly forbidden by the rules governing its management to ever be in debt.

If as "D.M." says the only surviving trustee residing in Hunua is willing to surrender his duties as a private trustee and turn the Hall

over to the public, why does not " D.M." get him to do so The Committee are certainly not stopping him from doing so; in fact, they have no say whatever in regard to alteration of rules except as ordinary shareholders; any shareholder having just as much say in this respect as any of the Committee. If "D.M." thinks it is only fair for the Hall to be turned over to the public, why should he not get tho resident trustee to call a special meeting of shareholders to consider the question. "D.M." could come along with all the details about how the thing is to be worked, and could possibly have everything at his finger ends about how it is to be done. If he has not 1 don't think it would be much use, for I am quite certain nobody else has the piercing insight to see a way in which it could be satisfactorily arranged.—l am, etc., F. S. HIRST. Rama Rama.