HAMPSTEAD AFFAIRS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIX, Issue 9654, 10 July 1919, Page 4

HAMPSTEAD AFFAIRS.

(To the Editor "GuAumANv'.' 1)' 1!

Sir, —Your correspondent. ''Greater* A&hbwtcm" was evidently rrn-y much upset with himself and Hampstead. when he wrote his Jettor of Tuesday's date. Ho probably possesses a cat, .since that was the only thing lie did not complain of. I, with many others, would not mind if every vacant quarter aero section held- a cow, if there was any chance- of getting a pint of milk" when wanted. Possibly lie does not know that it. is not only for want of grass that cows bellow. 1 have- known them bellow many times from morning till night and very often till the following morning with feed lip to their knees. Then, again, I was the eldest of nine in our family (seven girls and ■ two boys) who attended the Hanip--stead School, and my mother never had tho least trouble wit-ii our heads. I myself, sent four children to the same school', (three of them old enough to loavo), and! I also can say I havo never been- worried Avith "beasts of' 1 many legs"" a& your correspondent termed them..

OXFORD .STREET

(To 1 the Editor 1: "Guardian?")

Sir, —From the tone, of some of the letters published yesterday, it is -easy to road between the lines, and discover why some people are anxious to d«>jVnd Hampstead. One -would almost, imagine that some of the writers were sanitary experts. It would have been, more to the point if they had stated that the district was years bohind tho ■iimes as far as sanitary conveniences are concerned.

Lot them look again, and try to discover the modern drains connecting*-'* with the majority of houses in tbv< locality. There is a great deal in what the ' correspondent "Greater AsHbtirton" states regarding the smells. Can 1 any person tmlhfuly state that a. householder can go on year in.'"and ' year out emptying bedroom slops, -oap-suds, etc;., in the y;:id without creating a smell? The -said «mdl may not amount to much in <>r><? yard. Jbnl nmltipiv it by all tho sinews prising from the nn'lrained house's \ n Hamj)stead, and tlion sor» what soit of »tn aronn is created. By wjiv of a little* added variety, the outfall drain from the Borough pa.sses throiitrh the district, and hero morn sni^ll^ nriso in the heat of summer, and fire wafted by the breeze^ cently over'Himrvstoail. Your correspondent "GrpflW Ham])stcvul" ns rovtainl'V on ih« v'^rrht track' over the ssmol! question. + T think 1 it would have been and mnrp. politic +o have left +1->e other "tick" question at the school nut of ' his letter.

OTtMOTORY

(To- the TCmTem "O;ttavt>ian.")

Sir,- -I would like to' say a word or two with regard to the alleged "interview" with" one of your reporters yesterday, T certainly passed a few ' words on the subject with a member of 3'our staff, quite- as a jol«t>,- and I had nob the faintest idea that anything I. said was intended for-publication, andI would advise your representative tobe a little more explicit, in ■' future when. , seeking to gain information for the paper. Your reporter apparently does not know that although 1 am a ratepayer in the Hampstead District, and a member of the Board, I am a resident of the Borough, which fact 1 would have informed him had I known he was seeking "copy."

I The present members of the Town Board are evidently doing their best for the ratepayers of the district, with. the small amount of funds at their disposal, and while there is certainly fooin for improvement in many directions, more cannot 'be' expected with the small sum available: I am certainly a strong' advocate of Greater Ashburton," but could' scarcely' advocate such a move at present in Hamp-> stead in view iof the- experience of the Netherby district since that part became part of,. th& Borough. With regard to .'.your correspondent "Greater' Ashburton," I consider most of his remarks too ridiculous to be taken se-' riously, but the concluding paragraph! I take strong exception to;* that'is his. attempt to cast a slur on the children, attending the' Hampstead ' School,, which remarks I consider quite,, uncalled for," and absolutely '.contrary to ■ fact. I may say that. I have" two chil* ' dren attending the School, and certain- 1} ly have no complaints to make regarding the matter mentioned by your cor^>respondent; on the contrary, sir, I ivM moro than satisfied "with the. School.,' which I consider compares favourably; with any other of its size in the Do- . minion. *I think the parents as a whole should strongly resent the slur cast on the School by "Greater Ashburton • who evidently has no children ot Jus own attending, and only gets his supposed information" second-hand. R. BL. jjUj. .

(To the Editor "GimpiAN.' ) Sir,— Kindly permit me through tlio medium of your columns to say a lew wSrds in reply to "Greater Ashburton's" letter. The first portion ot tho tetter does not concern the mothers,- , although personally I know each member of the Board, some of whom wore fellow schoolmates, and feel sure- that each, without exception, would take honest criticism as true Britishem should. The last portion of the letter, was most shocking and uncalled tpi* having nothing to do with the rubbish and his menagerie. Mothers oi Hampstead School children have borne the . heat and burden of the past five years', and shouldered their manifold dutied , in a 'mast Christian-like manner-^ working .strenuously .for those who. lei* i our shores/-, and, in • the interim; -attending to their homes and little ones. I have been wondering since reading the correspondent's letter what nationality lie might be—certainly his attack, the'onus of Avliich tails on the mothers, and defenceless children, is anything but British

"A MOTHER."