Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 402, 10 July 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

DEVONPORT WHARF OPENING Sir, — I note in last night’s Sun the explanation by the Mayor of Devonport of the exclusion of the citizens from the Devonport Wharf opening on Saturday. He states that he was quite unaware that a crowd had assembled and was barred from entering. If a crowd was not expected, is it not strange that a barricade was erected and a police patrol posted there? However, the Devonport Council bears only half the responsibility, and a large number of readers would be interested if the Sun (which deserves the community’s thanks for refusing to adopt a hush-hush attitude upon such matters) would obtain “explanations” from that other autocratic body concerned —the Harbour Board—whose officials were on duty at the barrier. A.E.C. PARNELL BATHS AGAIN Sir.— Chiefly thro ugh the efforts of your paper the need for improvement in Parnell Baths was impressed upon the City Council. Hate last spring these improvements were effected and again the council slumbered and again the baths became unfit to swim in. The City Council in its wisdom decided to instal filtration plants, but the odds are that the work will not be started until the season is well advanced and the baths could be paying a little interest on the capital invested. Revenue was lost at the beginning and the end of last swimming season owing chiefly to lack of proper supervision and it seems to me that this season will start the same unless The Sun disturbs the Parks Committee’s slumbers. AHSO SWAM. THE CHILDREN’S COURT Sir Knowing that your paper endeavours to present the truth to the public, I am taking advantage of this fact in writing to correct the somewhat erroneous version published oC last Saturday’s sitting of the Children’s Court. ‘ The Look Out Man” takes exception to my alleged objection to the publication of children’s names, and waxes sarcastic concerning the fact that an associate member does not know that the children’s names are not published. In the first place, my remarks were confined to endorsing Mr. HalliwelFs statements, and to stating that, in my opinion, it was undesirable to publish particulars of children’s cases, no matter how tactfully the Press might treat the matter. With regard to your reporter’s heavy wit, I am afraid that the worthy gentleman in criticising my lack of knowledge of the workings of the Court is sadly misinformed. Were

lie in a position to speak authoritatively he would be aware that I have been interested in and have closely followed the sittings of the Children’s Court since its inception. He would also be aware that I did not refer to the publication of children’s names, but to the publication of particulars concerning the children’s cases. Under the circumstances, 1 think he might first have verified his facts and secondly used that “discretion and sympathetic consideration’’ to which he refers in his paragraph. Thanking you in anticipation for your courtesy and consideration. B. E. CARNACHAN. BEHIND CLOSED DOORS Sir.— Until some tragedy results, the people will not see the iniauity of having a secret Children’s Court, in which even the cases without names now may not be reported. Were the rights of the court over children limited, this secrecy of the Star Chamber kind would not so much matter, but the power of the courts is tremendous. X have m my possession records of some AO cases, in which the parents claim that injustice has been done. The other side, of course, I have not heard ISow parents will be able to sav what they choose, for we will not be able to look up the papers and see what the truth is. Under the Child Welfare Act, a chUd may be put, ultimately, into any kind of home, including an imbecile home, and, once that happens, he remains a State ward till he is 21 or over 1S n ° machlner y b y which the parent can prove injustice. In history injustices have always resulted when power has been both secret and trea it S hn,Z l ° Un f d , that if POWer it should not be great; if great it should not be secret. HOHIE. TOO MANY MOSQUITOES Sir, — _ * w °u |d like to see, through your Khnr could not bring before the of de P lor able state oi aiidirs that exists around George Newmarket.^ 116 ™nding strSSTt pom,d? a^ r % a ff nd te “ ants have wasted to rM thl i rent remedies to try to nd their homes of the swarms Newmarket in L v“ e council at nottmThaTbeen done 'T gwSS&zKszZ ratepavers in the r to , s ° before the i will very” keh- L t ” °I a loan w bich something could be r H ed dOWn- [ -top the trouble. Children here

have been unable to attend through not getting miHIcMW and being badly bitten by tnefe If something is not don ® JJ * Qp of residents should be called to take this question up, as w ® put up with the inconvenience lonßer - EADLT BITTES. STREET HAWKERS i" tliink the Mount E<i en Council might well give some a to the licensing of hawkers m ough. Yesterday, an tfcalled at my door, shook lus face, and in towering rage £• “I would like to hit that wo®*® - & corner on the snout for the * shut the door in my face. - I was alone in the house a * and you can imagine my feeiins this man called, with my £* away at his office. ±=> soon as said this, he thrust tfie artici to sell in my face, find went . u:e r tering to himseli. I waS ? terrified, and had the utmost in getting rid of him- 1 kn ° a lot of unemployment just n • think that the council shoum licences only to respectable ril* 1 pecially as it is hard to see wa borough council can possess men to trespass on private P because that is F-O^