FAIR PLAY IS BONNY PLAY.

Hastings Standard, Issue 30, 1 June 1896, Page 3

FAIR PLAY IS BONNY PLAY.

[To tuk Editor.] Sir, —Kindly allow mo, through your valuable columns, to say a word with reference to the controversy at present going on in Hasting re the above. The origination of this argument has come out of the unfortunate accident which hefel the youth Jam* some weeks ago, and in commenting on the accident the correspondent of the New Zealand Times made certain charges against the loci) 1 police. The facts or otherwise (mostly otherwise) of such charges are too well known and quite unnecessary to recapitulate ; sulliceit to say that prejudice was apparent right through the report, liesides being far from the truth, it was rather a cowardly attack to make, knowing that police ollieers are unable to resent such statements through the prer-sby virtue of their office as civil servants. I quite agree with your correspondent, " A Lover of Justice,"' when he terms the author of the disturbance one who hit? below the belt. The Times correspondent should be aware that no good whatever will .accrue from such unwarrantable statements either in the eyo* of the public or in the Defence Department. The only thing to be regretted is that such men are in the position of conveying to the public some visionary alinir—probably a dream—that, never happened. It is a very easy matter t:> decry the police ; but, Sir, what are the characteristics of men who will resort to th.-e tactics •> No straightforward business man will attempt it ; no impartial man will think of it; and no man having at heart the welfare of the community will voice it. So much for the statements of the Times' correspendellt. in your issue of Friday last I notice a letter signed " Lights," evidently a writer' who would have your readers believe that be is a man of unction, and has vomited his opinion with much cogency (:') " Light*makes the assertion that the polic have been negligent in the past with regard to tlie enforcing of the bye-laws, if such were the case, Sir, how is it tlr't this alleged negligence lias never been commented on tiil the present ? 1 have been a resident of this district for many years, and never have I known a charge of negligence laid at the feet of the local police ; nor yet do 1 remember any such charge coming from the lips of any Magistrate or No Court in Hastings lu's yet made a charge against the police of so serious a nature as that alleged by your correspondent. The writer goes so far as to indirectly accuse the police of the accident to young Jarvis. What arrant rubbish ! The assertion is on a par with the rest of bis .statements. Does " Lights " imagine that two men can bo everywhere at the one time and pounce upon persons who may be drivving without lights—one; towards lia.vclock and the other in the vicinity of Stortford Lodge—and at the same time attend to the duties of the town ? The negative will be the answer from every man possessing an attribute of common sense. "Lights" asks the question are the three cases dealt with the other day a good record for two years?" Ci.rtainly! It is not the duty of the police to become tlie instigators of crime by rushing every individual before the Court. Far more good can be done by discrete police l offices by acting on a give-and-take principle. It would be a sorry world if the police were to conceal themselves in a sewer and spring out on the first person who diverted an inch or two from the strict paths of the law. Your correspondent winds up by saying " the more the press harp on the matter until a change is made the better." Why, sir, the press has not harped on the matter at all. The harping has conic from one or two individuals who are glad of the chance to harp on any subject—persons over ready to oppose right and support wrong, in order that they may appease their hungry prejudices.

While on fcbo subject, Sir, I cannot refrain from commenting upon a resolution passed by the local Knights of Labor the other evening. "While I maintain that the work of that body is lau«lable in the main, I regret that they should have parsed such a resolution as that recorded the other day in the Napier Evening News. First of all, Sir, supposing for the sake of argument. that the local police were to blame in this matter and that the correspondent of the New Zealand Times was right, in what way did it interest the Knights of Labor ? Secondly : Were the Knights of Labor justified in passing such a resolution on the voice of one side of the question only'? Thirdly : Is it not violating the principles of that grand body by announcing their resolutions in the columns of a newspaper ? No, Sir. I cannot for one moment believe that the resolution was passed by the local body with the members understanding the case—one side of which was only adduced. The Knights of Labor are in possession of men who love justice and would condemn no one on the hearing of one side of the case. No man in that body would care to be placed 011 a serious charge before a judge and jury and accused of a crime of which he was innocent without being allowed to vindicate himself from the aspersions of his enemies. It therefore behoves the local body to make stringent enquiries how such a resolution was allowed to pass; and, further, why the secret principles of the assembly were violated by such a resolution appearing in the

columns of a newspaper. The whole affair is as transparent of glass in broad daylight, and one or two men with minds like microscopes (capable only of making specs into rhonntains) have invented a number of false charge against the police. These statements go to the wind and are not worth the paper they were written on. The whole affair is a fabrication and not what your correspondent would have your readers believe. Leaving them to judge the merits of this case, and thanking you for encroaching on your valuable space.—l am, etc., Reality.