CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 October 1922, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

COUNTY OF EGMONT. (To the Editor.) Sir,—l notice Cr. Ferguson, like Cr. O’Brien, seems to delight in making statements that are absolutely contrary to fact. Just fancy accusing me of losing the Government grant of £2OO for the Kabul Road' The grant of £2OO was put on the Estimates by the Government for the Kahui Road, and the council ' had to subsidise it £ for £. As soon as I knew the money was on the Estimates, I proposed that the council apply for it, and the reply that the council received from the Government Department was to the effect that the council would have to curtail expenditure for the time being, as the Government had no money available. I think to be correct I moved five times that the money be again applied for, but what was I told by the chairman? "It was no use asking for the unoney, as the council was not in a position to subsidise it,” and I knew that was correct. Had I used the "parish pump” methods in the same way as my friends, Messrs. Ferguson and O’Brien, no doubt I could have got more monejj spent in my riding. The Rahotu members were always trying to get the council cut of debt, and .only asked for those things ! that were absolutely necessary. Can my Opua ' friends say the same for themselves? Np, they would not agree to attend committee ■ meetings without being paid. Rahotu members tried to shame them bsr refusing to accept payment. Their only policy is to tax I the Rahotu ■ riding and starve our roads.— I I am, etc., WALTER C. GREEN. Rahotu, October 9. THE LIQUOR PARTY’S ATTITUDE. (To the Editor.) Sir,—ln several issues of your interesting paper I have noted, published by arrangement, several attacks upon Prohibition. Op thinking over What was said in these attacks I have noted one remarkable feature of the . liquor party’s policy. And this feature is ' the fact that the liquor party has not yet imported a lecturer from the United States in order to illuminate the minds of New Zealand electors upon what is to them a very interesting and important subject, the alleged failure of Prohibition in the States. The Prohibition party has Imported two lecturers, Mr. Johnson and Dr. Armour, whose business it is to affirm the Prohibition in the States is a success and to support their affirmations by means of all the proofs at their disposal. Cannot the liquor party do likewise? Are they unable to import one for the contrary task? Are they unable to find such a one? I feel sure that, if they could only find one so filled with a sense of the unrightfulness of Prohibition and of the failure of Prohibition in the States that he would forsake all and coms to this land to do all in his power to prevent our making the same mistake, they would surely get him. But I fear we cannot expect that the liquor party can find such a one, and therefore it is true that the electors of New Zealand are to be exposed to a one-sided presentation of the facts of Prohibition in the -States. It must, however, be ggid that there is one-sidedness and one-sidedness. There is a one-sldedness that suppresses truth and fox selfish ends and there is a one-sldedness that suppresses nought and takes a side, the side considered right. This latter one-sldedness is that of Mr. Johnson . and Dr. Mary Armour, It does not commend the cause of the itquor party that they do not import a lecturer from the States to support their contentions.—l am, etc., S.P.Q.R. Opunake, October 7. (Published by Arrangement.)