CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13783, 23 June 1905, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

Correspondents are requested to make their communications as brief as possible. The signatures to letters that are not publishod in full will' be marked with an asterisk', thus: *J OHN SMITH. MRS HARRISON LIE’S STATE- , • MENTS. ' SO THE EDITOB. Sir,: —As I am one of the persons referred to by Mr E. Nordon in your issue of to-day, I hereby challenge him to prove that no-lioense has caused “one prominent prohibitionist ” to dispose of his business in Ashburton; also that “another equally ; prominent prohibitionist has been making frantic efforts to dispose of his business” from the same cause. If Mr E. Nordon proves the above I will give £lO to the Christchurch Hospital, If he dees not prove it, I shall require him to give £lO to the New Zealand Alliance; the Mayor of Ashburton'to s be the judge. If Mr E. Nordon is a straight business man, he. will accept this challenge.—l am. etc., ONE OF THE PERSONS REFERRED TO BY MR B. 1 NORDON. Christchurch, June 22, 1905. LABOUR QUESTIONS. . TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I wish to correct a statement made by Mr T. E. Taylor at a conference held in Inglis Buildings last night, and reported in a local of your issue of to-day. He stated that T waited upon him with a view of placing the Council’s position before him and asking his support for a certain proposal, giving the public the impression that the proposal related to “ compulsory preference to unionists,” that being the item then being discussed by the conference, and in consequence of his refusal to comply with my request I had interfered with the men working in the streets. This statement is not correct. My proposal on that occasion had nothing whatever to do with preference to unionists nor had it any connection with the Trades Council or my union. It related purely to tho wages paid by tho company of which he is a prominent member. He had told me that the men were being paid the full wage, and I had found that it was not so. As no doubt more will be heard of this later on I will - not at present go into any further details.— I am, etc., H. M. LEATHEM. St Albans, Juno 22, 1905. ' THE OPAWA COACH. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Please allow mo to correct a statement in your issue of Wednesday, in which you state, that a man named Charles Bird was knocked down by the Opawa coach in Cathedral Square on Saturday night. As driver of the Opawa coach, I beg to say the above is not correct. Whoever the man was knocked down by, it was not by tho Opawa coach, as at the time the accident happened the coach was at the Opawa end of the road, and I was driving it.—l am, etc., DRIVER OPAWA COACH. ANOTHER INIQUITY CASE. to Tint editor. Sir, —Owing to the prompt action of Mr T. E. Taylor, M.H.R., an iniquity case was recently exposed in your columns, and as a result the cause of morality was greatly benefited. Tho identity of the culprit in that case was so thinly veiled that it was comparatively easy to locate him, and ho has been very pi-oporly punished by being compelled to leave the city. Another iniquity case has just come to light, tho details of which are quite as serious as those of tho former. The writer is in a position to know that Mr Taylor is in possession of the whole of the facts, and respectfully asks why ho (Mr Taylor), as the self-constituted guardian, of the public morals, does not come forward and give tho public tho benefit of his knowledge. If ho still remains silent the public can draw their own deductions.—T am, etc., FAIR PLAY. (Mr Taylor is away from Christchurch, and will probably not see our correspondent's letter for some days. When ha does see it he may think it desirable to explain why bo does not expose all the cases of iniquity that come to his knowledge. In tho* meantime, wo may point out that tho suspected person in the second case has done , voluntarily what Mr Taylor demanded that the culprit in the first case should do.—Ed. “ L.T.”) RATES AND TAXES. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Tramways (sectional), £30,000; consequent interest and sinking fund, how-much? proposed gas purchase, say, £29,000; add, also, interest and sinking fund; accidents and maiutainance

fund for both accounts, how much? then the diversion of trade by motor feeders again, how much? Who pays the piper? The ratepayers! When the latter see, by their surcharge rates, what these “fads” cost them, they will “ stiffen.” The absolute cost should bo a burden on posterity. The auld Scotchman said: “D n posterity, what lias posterity done for me?” “ Festina Lents” is a motto more honoured in the breach than in the observance. —I am, etc., MICHAEL HART, LICENSING DEBATE. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Mr Leonard Isitt says ho is thirsting for a debate on the liquor question and oan get no one to take the anti-prohibition side. Either his memory is bad or it is convenient that ho should forget, the severe “ gruelling” which Mr W. W. Collins gave him in the Tuam Street Hall shortly before he left for England.—l am, et °‘ I GOOD MEMORY.

OLD AGE PENSIONS. TO THS EDITOR. ■ Sir, —I sea by your paper lately that Mr Powell and Iris party take credit for first proposing the old age pensions. In ray opinion, and many hundreds, aye, thousands; they would show themselves great men if they went one better and helped Mr T. E. Taylor to get a Bill passed for the old ladies to receive the pension at sixty years of age. What a blessing they "would- confer on many dear old women who have grafted hard for thirty and even forty years in the colony.—l am, etc., OLD COLONIST. DEATH CERTIFICATES. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Dr Hammersley, in his letter., on death certificates in Saturday’s “Times,” makes an assertion which,, if true, is tantamount to a charge of gross carelessness or negligence on the part of one .or more members. of the hospital staff. I cannot but think .that Dr Hammersley, has been misinformed as to the facts,of the case. • That so simple an ailment as housemaid’s knee in an otherwise healthy girl should end in embolism, septic pneumonia and death seems to me almost incredible in an institution such as the Christchurch Hospital, • so' conspicuous for-the successful treatment of its surgical cases, and for the esprit do corps which characterises the doings of its honorary staff. I trust that Dr Hammersley will inquire further into this matter and withdraw, in your columns, the slur ho has cast upon the hospitalstaff.—l am, etc., , MEDICUS.

PROHIBITION INTOLERANCE. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have'been waiting for a protest from somebody concerning an incident, reported in your columns. It is „ significant of the attitude of the Prohibitionists generally that an individual who attended one of Father Hays’s lectures should have been ignominiously hustled out of tho hall simply because he ventured to intrude an interjection questioning whether tho speaker was not in league avith the . Alliance. At least, so. the incident appears to read from your report. I,should have thought that tho Prohibitionists would have been eager to secure The - attendance of those who differed from thqm in principle, in order that; their, new high, priest might have the opportunity of attempting to convert them, and this'stems to have been the view taken ..by tho lecturer himself. Apparently he has a greater opinion of his own powers than iris flock, or they would have allowed tho doubter to remain. Had tho individual been making himself objectionable there was a proper remedy for tho organisers of tho meeting, for there wore plenty of police in attendance,' and statute law makes provision for the punishment of disturbers of public meetings. As it was the characteristic intolerance of the party found vent in tho cry of “ Chuck him out,” and,the suggestion found a 1 ready acceptance at tho, hands of t lio-audien.ee. But, after all, the action was just what mignt he expected from a body of people whoso first characteristic is an essential bigotry of opinion which leaves no room for charity.—l am, etc., MODERATION.

RAILWAY EMPLOYEES. TO TUB EDITOR, Sir,—During tho recent holidays I hoard of many overworked and underpaid railway employees. In one case of a man who had to work hours on. one day, and the interval between dinner and tea was nine hours, for the princely wage of,4s Gd per day, other employees having to work almost as long hours. ' In fact I heard of one man working 15 hours in one day, but as long as a meal hour is provided I suppose it will be considered that these men have very little to complain about, though these hours I consider to be excessive, and tho fact of keeping a man nine hours without a meal is certainly inhuman, and I understand that' this overtime is neither paid for nor is time off allowed, for it. Now,

whether these men have themselves to blame or not I cannot say, but I know that if a mail has a grievance and desires to air it he is quickly told that if he is not satisfied there are plenty of others willing to fill his place. This may be true, but it should not warrant a Government Department treating its employees in such a scandalous manner. Were a private employer to do this sort of thing ho would be brought to task. I trust Sir _J. G. Warn* will soon return from his holidays and set to work at once and rectify these injustices without further trouble, and so save the risk of railway accidents from overworked employees.—l am, etc., OBSERVER.