CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 30, 6 February 1899, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

PETITION TO THE T" HEAD COUNCIL

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l desire to reply to 'Watchman,' not so much to question Mr Witheford's claim upon the vote of th» Council in the approaching Harbour Board Election, but to correct 'Watchman's' statements concerning Mr Kay. He asserts that Mr Kay expressed tha opinion that, the deputation ought first to' have waited upon Mr Bell. This is utterly misleading. In reality it was Mr Shepherd, the deputation's spokesman, who first alluded to Mr Bell, and what he said in effect, speakin o- by instruction, I understand of°the petitioner's, was that it waa the duty of the Council to ask Mr Bell to withdraw from the contest. It was then that Mr Kay replied that if it was anyone's duty it was the duty of the deputation and not of the Council. This I think your readers will admit is an entirely different version.—Yours, etc., JUSTICE.

(To the Editor.) Si r .-Notwithstanding 'Watchman's* opinion that Mr Kay was 'impertinent' in contending that the deputation ouo-ht to have been courteous enough to "have approached Mr Bell, with a view of suggesting his retirement in: favour of Mr Witheford, I contend, in view of the generally admitted fact, that as Mr Bell has the respect and goodwill of all those whom he represents, that it would have been a gentlemanly act that was due to him as the sitting member to have so approached him. I understand Mr Bell would cer- - tainly have withdrawn, but owing to the undermentioned facts having be« come known he (and I rightly think) decided to contest the seat. It is true, though it may be denied, that some of the promoters of the petition threatened to 'chuck those Councillorsout at the next Borough election who did not favour and support Mr Witheford's election.' Now, Sir, whatever we may think of a. candidate in any election, the main thing that causes us to side with one perhaps who would not otherwise have our support is intimidation. Further, the promoters asserted that 225 signatures had been obtained, though they had been repeatedly told that there were 125 ratepayers only on the roll who were entitled to sign it, as the member represents Birkenhead Borough, and not Northcote. I admit Mr Witheford has done excellent work whilst a member of the Board, but what objection should he have to representing Auckland city. He has been asked if a substantial requistion were signed and solid'support- promised him should he do so, but he declines. As Mr Bell is naturally a modest man, and 'Watchman' is unaware as to whether he has. any special claim to occupy the seat for" another term, I . would like to mention some of the benefits we have received during his term of office: Enlargement of the Northcote Ferry tee, Auckland side: erection of ladies' waiting-room andpame lined and varnished at Birken- ■ head; improvement to. breastwork, Birkenhead; wharf enlarged at ditto; cranes erected at NTorthcote and Birkenhead; erection of'new" waiting-room . and repairs to wharf at Northcote; erection (proceeding) at Northcote; to 1 say nothing of Auckland generally having the value of Mr Bell's long and varied experience in the treatment of general matters that "have come before the BOard. The above forms, in my opinion, a sufficient reason why Mr Bell should be returned. —I am; etf>