MYSTERIOUS DROWNING CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2300, 7 April 1887, Page 2

MYSTERIOUS DROWNING CASE.

Instance of Maori Superstition.

A COHHESPONDKNT at Whatawhata writing yesterday, sends us the following :—A fatal accident occurred .to a native yesterday by drowning in the Rotokauri Lake, while crosKitig in a cnniie with potatoes. The; natives say that the canoe was capsized by a native monster namnd l'eketahi. The deceased called out, "There is something coming over me and I can't save myself." He immediately disappeared and was not again seen. The body is still' being searched for by his comrades. Deceased \va3 an excellent swimmer. A POISON SCARE AT CAMBRIDGE. « Quite a flutter was caused among the parents of Cambridge on Tuesday ' last, when it became known that someone had given a handful of morphia lozenges tomne of the children attending the school. Fortunately the child, instead of eating them, at once took them home and gave his father some. He noticing the word_ morphia upon them; at once took the remainder from the child, and went and'consulted Mr Hughes, .the chemist. He-denied all knowledge of them, and said he did not keep them, but stated they would be dangerous for children to take. This soon spread, and many' mothers put their children through ft severecrossfexamination during- the. afternoim. We have enquired'into the matter, and.find, that the person who distributed them was Mr Gerrish, gardener, of Duke-street. . It appears he was working for Mr Houghton, topping some pine trees, when he found an old box .-of rubbish, and upon turning, "it .out/ he noticed a bottle of what he,thought were lollies. The bottlewas, sealed up, and he, no doubt, thought he had a big find, and would give the children a treat. He broke the bottle, and.gave a handful to a , little girl named Alice ' Stewart.. She distributed them among other children, among whom was the little fellow who took them. to ; his father, and thus brought their dangerous character to light. The warning proved too late, for several children had eaten of them. Little Stewart was very ill for. about two hours,, and several ..other' children were unwell, but fortunately the whole of them vomited, thus getting rid of.a portion.of.the poison. .We think Mr Gerrish should have' been'more careful, and not have given the lollies away until he knew what they were composed of. A single glance. w*>uld have ; warned him as the word morphia was imprinted on each lqkenge.- Several of the children's mothers are'very wrath, and we would ad vise, Mr Gerrish to keep out of the range of their tongues for the next day or two, or he will have an uncomfortable time of it. ' MR WHYTE'S SECOND LETTER. ~» '" TO THE .EDITOR. . Sir,—Mr Whyte having in"his second letter proposed an opposition scheme as an alternative to that advocated by the Railway League, it becomes desirable that-his letter should should be dealt withl from'the point of view of the League. Mr Whyte's views, from the position he holds, are entitled to the greatest consideration, but" rjne thing is certain. If our forces are divided, all hope of reform can be given up. If therefore, one portion of those'seeking: reform adopt Mr Whyte's scheme, whilst others continue to advocate Mr Vaile's, the Railway Reform League may save itself further trouble. It will collapse from division of opinion. The important point therefore to ask is this : Are the merits of Mr Win te's scheme superior to those of Mr Vuilo's 'I Will what he proposes be mure fitted to advance settlement, increase the population of the country districts,-.andjiicroase the r;v\l:,. way revenue, than Mr VaiTe's scheme ? On. points —which are the essentials of the whole matter—Mr Whyte is silent.- ,,, ! submit that in proposing an alternative scheme to Mr Vaile's he was bound to prove its superiority, which, so far as I can see, he has not attempted to do. It is not, I am sure, necessary for me to recapitulate, however briefly, the advantages .'of the Vaile scheme, or the arguments on which it is based. Mr Vaile claimed for it the following probable results .in his letter to the Parliamentary Committee:—"lst, the rapid settlement of the country ; 2nd, the creation of numerous inland towns; 3rd, the doing away with the great evil of "massing large numbers"of" people in a few centres; 4th,-a-more even .-distribution" and wealth ; sth, a mote equitable adjust-. , ment of the burden of taxation; Gth, a very large increase in the railway revenue." A good many of us think that Mr Vaile has abundantly and clearly proved every one of Jhe above results as likely to follow from the adoption of his system. Therefore, instead of merely laying down an alternative scheme, I submit Mr Whyte ought in fairness to have argued the question, which he has not, I think, done. The argument underlying Mr Whyte's scheme is expressed in these,Wjprds, " I am therefore of opinion that no scale of charges can succeed, or'be reasonable, 'which is liotbased generally upon the cost of the service rendered." But is he not inconsistent when he proposes to charge a man 2d per mile who travels 10 miles, whilst a man who goes 180 miles travels the last 100 iniles at per mile.? Is-he not here adopting the Vaile system, which he objects- to '! To quote "Mr Whyte, '"the cost'of the service ■rendered " is exactly-the same over each 10 'miles of the line, whether you- charge him 2d or id. ; '

. Butis the argument a good one as to " cost of service? " If I send a telegram from Waikato to Invcrcargill it passes through nine or ten different transmitting stations, but I pay exactly the same as if I sent it only a-couple of miles away. I can send a letter to Western Australia for 2d, the same as it costs me to send a letter to Hamilton. If I institute a Supreme Court action which keeps the court occupied for a month, I pay only the same fees to the Government as for a case which occupies five minutes. What about "cost of service rendered " in all these, cases ? And if the State surrenders the principle in those cases, why should "cost of service 1 !, be insisted on in railways, which can' be made to promote settlement and do what they were intended to do, colonise •and people tjie, interior? I" may be told that this liife of argument leads to a "universal -fare," and possibly it may come to that yet, the railways being treated as great roads or highways of commerce. This in passing. Then, again, if Mr Whyte's argument is correct,'of payment of the "cost of a service rendered" being essential to railway management, why not carry it out to its. legitimate issue? Do people now pay the cost of service rendered ? Not at all. The railway last year returned only £2 12s per cent, on their cost, and this year the sum will probably be less than £2 ss. Henca those who used them did not pay sufficient for the service rendered, and, as Mr Whyte says, that "any other basis means favouring the few at the expense of the many." I reply that that very thing is being done now in its worst form. The number of people using the lines bears a very small proportion to the whole of the population. The vast mass of the population cannot afford to. use the lines at present, but they are all taxed to make up the balance of the interest above and beyond the profit over working expenses. As Mr Whyte says. i "All have to contribute to the payment of j the interest on our railway loan, and all do \ not use the railways," in. fact, I might add that under Mr Vaile's ( scheme five people would use the lines for one now.

The disadvantages, however, of Mr Whyte's scheme will be apparent to those who consider the matter. They are, I think—(l). That he perpetuates the mileage system, which is the very root of .the evil. (2). That under it all the. advantage of the stage system proposed by Mr Vaile would be lost, thus, preventing simplicity from being valued in the tariff. (3.) That the causes which now operate to mass population round cities and ports would remain, causing .all manufactures to centre there, and preventing the diffusion of the population. (4.) That the change be advocates would not be sufficiently radical to alter the system (which, "as a system," the Parliamentary Committee said was " not satisfactory,") and that therefore the evils all are fighting' against would only be lessened, not removed. (5.) That therefore the financial results would be doubtful, as to whether beneficial or. otherwise, whilst under Mr Vaile's scheme it is proved that only two passengers are required for one carried now to secure an increased revenue.

I must apologise for taking up so much of your space, but as it is. of paramount importance that the Railway League should be united and kept straight on towards the goal they have set out for, and as from Mr "Whyte'a high position his opinion must have great weight, I have thought it desirable that the other side should be heard in opposition to the scheme he has proposed, and which certainly merits careful investigation.—Yours truly, (i. W. RussEi-r..