NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3971, 14 May 1870, Page 3

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

"Rusttous." — We do not consider the publication of your letter would do any good. It is better, we think, to give Mr. Rolleston an opportunity of reflecting upon the effect and import of his words, than to needlessly irritate him by animadverting on his idiosyncracies. "Third of May alias, Lucky Hit." — As this is a case which is likely to come before the Courts of Law, and as it does not affect the public, so far as we can see, the letter can only appear as an advertisement. Our Grahamstown agent will arrange for its publication, as an advertisement, if it be thought advisable by the writer to strengthen his position with the public. ( 'Shareholder." — The judgmentcomplained of is one with which the general public have nothing whatever to do. There is no general principle involved. If the lawyer named acted agamdt the instructions of his clients, we apprehend the remedy is not to be sought for in anonymous newspaper publication. " An Ex-Thames Volunteer." — This letter ought to have been addressed to an evening contemporary. " Go Ahead, Mangawai," replies to a letter which appeared in our weekly contemporary, complaining of the removal of the po&t-omce from the beach, at Mangawai, to Mr. Brown's. Our coirespondent contends that the great body of the settlers are advantaged by the change, and that those living at the beach are in no way inconvenienced, inasmuch as "they can and do receive their papers by the boat.'' It appears that there are only three houses in the vicinity of the beach. Our correspondent intimates that a memorial can easily be got up in the settlement, signed by a large majority, approving of the change. " Index" writes on the Fencing ' Act. As the correspondence on this subject is closed in our columns for the present, we cannot insert his letter. "Index" is in favour of the law as it stands, and argues that whilst a settler is engaged clearing his farm, fencing, and laying it down in grass, he should be permitted to run his cattle on the waste land, otherwise he could not possibly remain. "Index" likewisp says: — "Positively cattle do not injure bush flax to any appreciable extent. Where flax is cultivated, let it be fenced in like any other crop." " Index" further says that the absentees derive profit by having cattle run upon their land : it has the effect of making it accessible with tracks ; and he adds, that land has risen considerably in value in special settlements during the last two years. He also puts this question, the latter part' of which he will find satisfactorily answered in an extract fronnthe Hawke's Bay Herald, published by us yesterday : "I would wish to ask, what are we to do with our cattle if compelled to fence in ? "We cannot keep them, and can we find a market for them in Auckland ?" These are the main points in our "correspondent's letter, which we regret we cannot publish entire.