Correspondence.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43221, 29 August 1907, Page 2

Correspondence.

vVe do not ho 1 cl ourselves responsible for t ! ij opinions expressed by our corrc.',pendents.

[to the editor]

Sir, —Re “Charity’s” letter which appeared iu your issue of the 27tli. I . think he or she would not have wasted time by writing a long pre-amble about wind etc., if I bad been more explicit in stating the case. The wreath was artificial and enclosed in a glass case, which was fastened in the ground by steel prongs. It seems hardly feasible that, though “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” it would carry a wreath enclosed in a glass case, which was fastened in the ground, some 20 or 30 yards away, drive the prongs attached into tho ground and leave it face upwards. A wind that was powerful enough to blow a glass case 20 or 30 yards over rough ground, would most assrredly break it to atoms. I quite agree with “Charity,” that “ happily there are few such persons,” but if I dirt not firmly believe it was a deliberate act, I would not have taken the trouble to make it public. As regards the card attached to the wreath, I might mention that it was inside the case and that the ease had been opened, the wreath lifted up and the card conceitlcd underneath. The wreath was at- . tacbed to the bottom of the case, and the flowers which were of china were broken and damaged, which was caused by bciug- lifted up to conceal the card. It was not until endeavouring to remove the broken petals, that the card was discovered. I think year correspondent d rived a different meaning from my letter of the 24th, than was intended. I did not assert children were low. In attributin the deed to a mischievous child my meaning was, that it did not seem possible an adult would commit such a mean act, but a child might do it mischievously or innocently, not having a full sense of right and wrong, A child might in its innocence, do rong, not knowing it was wrong, but if the same deed was perpetrated by an adult, who would know right from wrong, it would give the matter a different aspect altogether. I do not believe, in non do plumes and if “ Charity ” had signed his or her own nam°, I would have been -jonly too pleased to have called and explained the case personally, —I am etc., H. G. Saunders