OUR LETTER BOX.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue XXXXV, 27 November 1903, Page 3

OUR LETTER BOX.

(We are at all times willing to publish correspondence on matters of' public interest, but it must be distinctly understood that we are not identified with the letters of our correspondents.—Ed. Daily News.) THE PRESBYTERY OF TARANAKI (To the Editor.) Sir,—My attention has tteen drawn to a Press Association wire which appeared in your issue of the 18th Inst., headed, "Action of Presbytery upheld" (sustained) ; as this is the reverse of the fact and has puzzled some of your readers, I crave your permission to correct it. The Stratford congregation, session and managers forwarded three separate petitions on different matters. The Presbytery refused to transmit them to the Assembly, and petitioned for a commission instead. The three petitions were forwarded direct to the Assembly, in spite of the Presbytery's opposition. They were received and upheld by the Assembly. The Presbytery's petition was set aside as valueless. The- heading therefore should have been "Action of Presbytery condemned." Thanking you in anticipation, I am, etc., B. HUTSON. Stratford, Nov. 25, 1903, WEST WARD ELECTION. (To the Editor.)

Sir,—lf your remarks on the regrettable disinterestedness in borough affairs has the effect of arousing the New Plymouth ratepayers to a sense of their responsibilities, you will deserve the thanks of the populace. However, though some Mttle stir may Immediately result, I do not think our butgesses can be aroused so easily. What is now so noticeable in the West Ward is rather characteristic of the town so far as municipal affairs are concerned. The conduct of public affairs is left to the Councillors, and whether those gentlemen act wisely or to the contrary we see no valid protest made. Only the "man in the street" is heard, and his mutterings must be passed over. It is a strange thing, and a matter much to be deplored, tihat the men who have shown their business capacity by building up good businesses of their own should refuse to come forward and keep an eye on the administration of affairs. Yet this is so. To come more directly to the West Ward business. It appears to me that we have had enough of the ward system. Were all ratepayers eligible for election to fill the present vacancy I feel certain that no second appeal would be needed. Where is the advantage of the ward system ? I can foresee one disadvantage, and that is unless the residents in the West Ward wake up they will be left unrepresented. Let us hope that the present apathy can ||e shaken off, for when our ratepayers take a real live interest in borough affairs, then and only then will we progress as we ought.—Yours, etc., CITIZEN. FACTORIES ACT, 1901, AND THE RECENT PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION THEREUNDER. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Would you mind publishing the section of the Act which it was alleged was applied to the raso before the Court. It is :

Section 53.—1n any proceedings against the occupier 01 a factory for employing any person or persons therein in a breach of this Act the fact of tho person being found in any room in which the WORK OF THE FACTORY JS GOING ON shall be conclusive evidence that the person was then being employed in the room unless the defendant satisfies the Court that the person was not being employed, liat was there either against the orders and without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the occupier, or for the sole purpose of bringing food {or persons employed in the factory."

The capitals are mine. I feel confident that the general public will agree with my contention that the making of flimsy butter cloth costumes for the makers' own wear in connection' with an exhibit of their own at a Floral Fete—in a work room which was good naturedly lent to them gratuitously by the occupier of the factory could not, and should not, be held to be the "work of the factory t " and thai, therefore the lady prosecuted was not even guilty of a technical offence. You inadvertently omitted to point out in your article on the subject that though costs amounting to £1 8s were given against her defendant in the case which she so hardly lost Bhe was allowed noth#ig for costs in the case whick she won. In both cases there was admittedly no actand demerit on her part. Is it not time that the gross inequality of Government officials getting costs when they win and not paying costs when they lose should be done away with.—l am, etc., W. O. MALONE.