Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 131, 21 January 1859, Page 2

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Colonist. Sir, —The question in your journal, about teu days ago—Why the Board did not. take legal advice before they commenced operations to divert the water from Campbell's mill lead—^has been answered by the Judge, and very impartially too. Iv clause 20 of the Nelson Improvement Act, 1858, it is stated that "-the-said Board shall have charge and .control over.allstreets,, roads, squares',', alleys, pathways, lanes, bridges, and thoroughfares;. and all rivers, streams, watercourses, drains, ponds, ditches, and the like, not being private property, and comprised within the aforesaid boundary of the town of Nelson : Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall interfere with the powers, rights, or privileges appertaining to, or exercised by, either the Provincial or General Governments." Now the Board knew very well that Mr. Campbell had a privilege from the General Government for conveying the water to the mill from Brook-street. Will the Nelson public as usual, •* grin aud bear " the impost of furnishing the Board with the means for obtaining legal advice in the Supreme Court, as well as funds for experimenting in road-mending ? ;

i I hear the nexrmoyeori the-Board will be (as the Judge's decision baa,capsized the Board's •fine calculations) to form" tlie road (taieadvfcf nowhere) through which the mill stream runs..

May I be permitted to ask a few questions ? Will the completion of this road benefit any one individual ? Is the mill a public benefit in keeping down the price of flour ? Without desiring to do away with the Board .'altogether, I jdo wish them to act with judgment sometimes—say once in a twelvemonth or so. - ■:■..■■■■: One more question—Does not this perverseness on the part of the Board savour more of private pique than of public utility ? i.'.'-. I am, &c, ; ' ' SCRUTATOR. Nelson, 19th January.

To the Editor of the Colonist.

Sm,—Mr. L. I. of the N. E. of Saturday last, gives a kind of police report under the head of local intelligence, commencing with " Interfering . with the public streets." I wish the Board of Works would interfere with them where interference is required, and preveut the continual '. nuisance of allowing horses on. the pathways. On that day I saw no. less than four horses occupying, the whole breadth of the path, and all of them apparently employed in closely examining the quality of the. meat at one butcher's shop. After reading tlie account'in to-day's Examiner of the horrible death- of the Russian lady, I for one shall take car© as to where I get my butcher's meat. SANDY ROPE.

'. To the Editor i)f the* Colonist. Sir,—ls it true that the most noisy men at the: meeting held at; the Court House on Friday-last, were those employed by the Board of Works ? . Ahd is| it judicious forthe various members .of the,; Board to ''ignore.'''their own trades and " set up" as engineers, surveyors, bricklayers, carpenters, &c. ?. .. ■' QUESTION.

• ■ To-ihe Editor of the Colonist. Sir, —In your, issue of Friday, the f7th ..ultimo, you informed- your ■correspondents',' that you" found tMe letter of "a Frenchman" inadmissible) although grounded upon fair argument. • , I must say-that I felt somewhat anxious to know what might be the subject _of such a letter ; and having learned this through an insertion which appeared in the Nelson Examiner, I was indeed surprised at your proceedings. The argument to your correspondents seems to be this: The letter of "a' Frenchman" is fair, but inadmissible, as it will call forth replies, which with common fairness could not be rejected, and- then cause you to break your old established rule of excluding controversial discussion from the' columns of your paper.

' Now, referring to the first number you published in Nelson, and in which you emit your principles, I do not see in any way that you ever made a rule of excluding controversial discussions from your columns,-as if-is- generally done in other papers!; all th'&t I can^finrl on that account in that first number is this: That your paper will be the strenuous advocate of civil and religions liberty. But above this I must confess (hat, knowing the facts, I find a most inexplicable difficulty in the explanation of your statement. ■

You, Mr. Editor, made the attack by an article " France and the Bible ;" made therefore yourselves liable to a reply. " A Frenchman" sent in a reply ; and this reply, which you found grounded upon failargument, and/ according to your assumed principle of "common fairness" could'not be rejected, is declared by you inadmissible. Most extraordinary this. And notwithstanding your own explanation there remains still the.question, Why? Is it because it is from "a.Frenchman ?" Surely to a man out of despotical France you would not, Mr,. Editor, under the laws of British freedom refuse the,benefit of that champion of freedom, the British, press? Or is it out of the; principle of common fairness ? No indeed! But why? .-..-■■ ...

I am, Sir, - A CORRESPONDENT,