CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 June 1917, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE HOME RULE QUESTION. To the Editor. Sir,—ln your issue of the 22nd inst., you publish a wire from London and you head the news "Ireland," "Judicial Partiality." In doing so you expose your own partiality, or prejudice, against the Irish people. You accept the testimony of an excited .policeman firing his revolver in the air at random—after the maimer of the criminal Captain Colthurst; —against that of a Stipendiary Magistrate of the City of "Dublin appointed by the English Government, and this, /Sir, is not the only occasion on which you have similarly shown your hand. You ought to know that there are 14,000 of these policemen in Ireland pampered with the lifeblood of Ireland, when &00 would be sufficient. As the Irish people are settling their governing affairs in Conference at Dublin, no doubt the 14,000 Roberts have decided to create riot and the necessary atmosphere to kill the Conference and secure their jobs —an old trick of theirs in Ireland.—l am, etc.,

M. O'BRIEN. Opunake, June 24, 1017. [Our correspondent must be a stronger to Taranaki, else he would know that the News has consistently advocated Home Rule for Ireland over a long period of years, but the actions of extremists in Ireland since the outbreak of war and the indiscretions of their supporters here put at times a strain upon the loyalty of flwe convinced of the inherent justice of the cause of self-government for Ireland.—Ed.]

THE "BABY. COMPETITION." To the Editor. ' Sir,—'W« are hearing quite a lot about this matter and the point of particular interest is the fact that the effort is being ctressed as a "good object, to help our hoys at the front." The question I want to ask is this, Is the effort mainly a ipatl'iotio one, or is it simply an effort to bolster up the receipts of a certain picture show? In asking this questiftn, I have in mind an offer from two other theatres appearing in your issue of 22nd inat., from which it would appear that a "monopoly" hats been granted one show, and the theatres in question have been ignored. If such is the casfe it would be interesting to know how far the effort is patriotic, and if the committee are so interested in the furthering of private interests under a patriotic g'.iies that they can afford t6 refuse a generous offer of help from others | willing to render assistance. —I am, etc., ! QUESTIONER. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. To the Editor. •Sir —I see by your report of the proceedings of the Council that the decision to to site is adjourned with the object of considering the suitalbility of a site in James Lane. I have heard a member lof the old council speak very strongly [in favor of this. In the first place there is abundant room about the septic tank. The ground could be cleaned'up, fenced in, and planted with ornamental trees. As to facility of access there is no other spot so convenient. It could be easily and quickly reached from Gill Street near the Railway Station, and westward ■ot Burgess and Eraser's, ailsto from Brougham street to the lane next the Royal Hotel, also from Devon street bv James Lane past Webster Bros.'s auction mart and also from Currie street by the lane between Jubilee Boarding House and Webster and McKellar's office. With these thoroughfares tidied up and well lighted the place would foe found the most suitable of any yet named, and a difficulty which threatens to involve the Borough once more in litigation would be satisfactorily disposed of.—l am, »tc., RATEPAYER.