PUBLIC OPINION.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2123, 15 May 1922, Page 5

PUBLIC OPINION.

ST. HELEN’S HOME, (To the Editor.) Sir, —The trustees of the St. Helen’s Home Fund have been subjected to considerable crit.cisux for their action in insisting that the money raised in the campaign shall be used for the establishment of a new and up-to-date building, and that no conversion of an old building, for the purpose, will be permitted. Dr Paget, and others of the trustees, have all along asserted, that the words “erect” and “up-to-date” have been omitted, or erased, - from the original motion passed on July 2Sth, 1921. That their action is justified is clearly proved by a sub-leader which appeared in the “Manawatu Daily Times" on August 18th, 1921, which has just come under my notice. The sub-leader reads as follows: —“The organ,sers of the Help the Mothers Compaign are experiencing some difficulty in convincing a section of the public that the idea of purchasing a wooden building has been abandoned. The fact is that ii has been definitely decided that the money raised is to be handed to the Public Health Department with a definite request that it shall be spent in the erection bf'an'up-to-date brick building with all the latest appliances for the treatment of maternity cases.” Mr P. C. Freeth, late editor of the “Times,” was the seconder of the resolution of July 28th, and this public statement, made editorially, by him, during the campaign, in August last, should set at rest all controversy as to the conditions under which the money was raised. The trustees have done their utmost to settle matters amicably, and without recourse to litigation, and surely those who are opposing the handing over the the fund, will realise the foolishness of their action, in the face of the above statement. —‘I- am,- etc., A. L. WESTMORELAND. [This matter was referred to in a sub-leader on Saturday, but this letter was crowded out at the last moment. —Ed, "M.D.T.”] SHOOTING OF DEER. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of May 10th appears a paragraph taken from the “Wanganui Chronicle,” referring to deer-shooting in that district. If the landowner mentioned objects to stalkers entering his property, an advt. in the local paper -would bo quite effective, as a license to shoot deer does not confer the right of entry to private property. The fusilade of shots mentioned suggests to my mind illegal killing. Stags of not less than ten points arc not so plentiful, Sir, and hinds arc. protected. If indiscriminate shooting took place, and Mr Connor met the offenders, he will, no doubt, see them brought to justice. Now the killing of the 12-pointer mentioned is not any crime, because the Acclimatisation. .Society . .would take care not to open any “block” where they saw fit to release breeding stags until such animals had had a number of years in which to fulfil their mission as far as the Society is concerned. The distance of forty yards is also referred to as an unsportsmanlike range to shoot a deer. As a matter of fact it is quite a correct distance. No man who knows how to stalk will bang away at long range at this class of game. The antlers cannot be fully appraised at any great distance, and all true sportsmen have a horror of an uncertain shot that may wound a piece of game that it may die in misery. The alleged tameness of this animal is another point in the par that is open to doubt. We have stags that were reared on the deer park at Paraparaumu, and if there is any difference in the “wildness” between them and their bush-bred cousins, I have not noticed it. The press has clone much to assist us in game protection for which we are duly thankfuly, and I hope you will publish this criticism of the stupid paragraph mentioned which has a tendency to discredit a manly pastime. —I am, etc., GREGORY G. KELLY, Honorary Ranger W.A. Society,