THAMES MUNICIPALITY.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 110, 15 February 1872, Page 3

THAMES MUNICIPALITY.

To tlie Editor of till' Tua.mks Cl'AaD I AX. Silt, —In your issue of this morning appears a letter signed, “ A Member of the Parawni Board,” purporting to reply to a letter of mine published in your previous issue. AVilh your kind permission, I shall hereafter take the liberty of delaying to reply to any parties who may impugn my statements till you intimate a desire to close the correspiondence on the subject in your columns. But the present writer makes some absurd mistakes, if lie will take the trouble to read my letter again he will find that, no such Act as t lie supposed Municipal Police Force -Vet is mentioned, unless, indeed, you have two different sets of type, and the proverbial Devil has made a mistake in one, and has set up correctly in the other. Next I will appeal to any throe members of the Kauwaeranga and AYaiotnhi Boards, one to ha chosen by the anonymous “Member," Ihe second by myself, and the third by the two first appointed to decide whether the l’arawai Board is net even now engaged in trying to conquer municipal privileges by means of the Auckland Municipal Police Act and its amendments.

I never wrote one word about flie net income of the waterworks, and our “member” takes good care not to mention the gross income. Anybody knowing the t/ross can form an opinion as to the nrf income ; while by making all sorts of hypothetical charges, the net income can be indefinitely reduced, 1 can point to three individuals who nay .£(10 per annum each, or .£IBO towards the “ Member’s” £-00.

“Air Pcrston” has formed no opinion on the drainage, question, and would be quite as unwilling as the “.Member” to compel any district to pay any portion of the expense of draining another. “Mr Pcrston ” simply quotes an opinion expressed officially by the Provincial (government of Auckland. In conclusion, allow me to ask “the Ibitepayers of Parawai not to be led away by plausible statements” made by Mr “ Member” “ or any other person,” but to go on and forward such measures as may tend to the improvement of their district. —I am, &c., M. d. Pehstox. P.S.—On re-reading I see I have missed one point, the question of “ignorance” in alluding thereto. 1 did not mean to be so discourteous as to accuse any of my opponents of ignorance, but in the course of my peregrinations I have encountered a considerable number of householders who profess “ ignorance of the .Municipal question,” and my letter is chiefly directed to them'. Shortlaml, Pel)ruary 14, 1.‘471i.