TE ARO BATHS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1242, 26 September 1911, Page 2

TE ARO BATHS.

Sir,—l irish' to controvert some of the statements made in a letter by your correspondent "Very Tired" in yesterday's issue. His statement that the old Te Aro Baths paid very handsomely when they were privately owned and kept open all day on fino Sundays is absolutely wrong, us for a number ot years boforo the baths were demolished they were by no moans a paying proposition; nor were they open all day on fine or any other Sundays, as they were always closed by midday.—l am, etc., A. R. MEKC'n. Sir,—l read with interest your remarks with regard to the Tβ Aro Baths, and thoso of "Very Tii-cil" in this morning's issue. Considerable trouble has Iwen experienced in the past as between tho public, the City Council, and tho caretaker with respsct to the hours during which the baths should be open, and this trouble, I think, arises from tho fact that the caretaker does not occupy the quarters provided for him, but resides in his own dwelling some little distance away. If ho resided on the premises it would bo convenient for him ov a member of his family to admit, anyone desirous of using tho baths at <iny hour of any day. At present ho is tied to his post on all davs of the year, and on holidays—part icnlarly when through bad weather tho baths aro poorly patronised—it seems to him a hardship to have to remain in charge. This, however, is a matter for arrangement between himself and the city authorities, but on behalf of the public I should like to make the following points:— There are a large number of swimmers (as distinct from beach bathers) who prefer the. baths on account of the deep water and the facilities for diving. The baths are a public convenience, nnd should be available at all times between daylight and dark on every day of the year. They arc now closed at II a.m. on .Sundays—an hour at.which, as "Very Tired" points out, manv people would just begin to use them, lor so'mo extraordinary reason, also, they arc closed from Hay to October from noon to 2 p.m., even on the finest day?, thosp being just the hours in winter during which they should be kept open.—l am, etc., DEEP WATER. Sir,—Having learnt of tho proposed extension of tho hours for the opening of tho To Aro Baths from 11 a.m. till 12 noon on Sundays, I desire, thro.igli the medium of your valuable columns, to enter my omplmtic protest against (hisstep, and in support of my contention would emphasise the following points, viz.:— (1) The proposed extension of hours is unfair to tliu attendant himself.. Already a man whose work is tedious and whoso hours are long, this proposition will further curtail for him a day which ho might legitimately expect to spend in (2) It is selfish on the part of thoso who propose this extension, in that the gra.ti(ication of their desires will involve longer hours upon an already hard-worked olh(3) It is a menace to the keeping of the Sabbath Day. Tho problem ol nonchurch going is already siifliciently grave and serious, without additional distractions being afforded to young men of tho city to absent themselves. (■1) Tho whole problem is capable, of a simple solution, m., that the bathers rise

nil hour or so earlier in I lie morning , on Sunday, a movn which would be equally advantageous to themselves, their landladies (if any), nnd tlio cily baths in common. Tlicro seems (o bo no rlifliculty which cannot he overcome with the exercise of a little thoughliiiliipss and unselfishness on the part of the bathers, nnd I am sure that this fact needs hut to bo mentioned to receive favourable- consideration.—l am, etc., .A BATHER, Sir,—One of tho city councillors, the. newspapers announce, is suggesting that the Municipal Bnths should not bo closed until noon on Sundays—one hour Inter than lit present. Sonie of the supporters ■• of this proposal make, no secret of the fact that their ultimate object is to havn tho baths kept open all day on Sundays. These people would appear to have no regard for the sacrcdiipss of the day, nor ■ for tho rights of thoi-o. whom they would > deprive ot Sunday rest and privilege. .Ml tluy would ssatii to care about is their own ease and enjoyment. A similar mo- ' tion was before the council Fomc time ago, ■ but was defeated. It is to \x hoped a like fato will attend the present project, and that our Labour 31.1', and the other re- . preventatives of the workers will 1)0 ' amongst tlioso councillors who will voto against tho proposal.—l nm, etc., WELLINGTON EAST.