THE BATHS PROPOSALS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVII, 15 July 1912, Page 6

THE BATHS PROPOSALS.

(To the Editor.J Sir, —Will you give mo a little space ill your columns to point out from a working man's point of view the folly of building baths at the site proposed, near the old salt water baths. These baths, if built, will not be cf much benefit to our children, the cost of fares from the city being prohibitive. In my case I would like to send three children, sa- three or four times weekly throughout the bathing season, especially so with a view to their becoming proficient in swimming. Now last season the cost per child was 3d each visit. Id fare each way, and Id admission with._ their teachers as school children. Now, I preeume this is cutting the expense as low as possible. This works out at 9d for three children each visit, and for four visits weekly 3s. Now this is above the means of our working classes. Of couT6e it may suit those who can bike, but can our working men with families afford bikes for their children? I think not. M«"v. r f course, will say lam not progressive, and many may not agree with me in my views. But I say it is for the few with means, and not for the working man's children. If the advocates of these baths for the city will only advocate a central position, 6a y' near Milton's Acre, or fresh water baths above the Trafalgar : street bridge, I, with many other working men, will certainly vote for the loan, but tainlv vote against the loan next Wednesday. I am, etc., WORKING MAN. (Of course, baths at the Port are at a disadvantage so far as distance is concerned ; but the water sweeping in the new cut from the Bay will be as fresh and healthy as iE can possibly be. There are circumstances which make saltwater baths at the city end of the harbour v>ery undesirable. It would 'be a foolish policy to go in for fresh water baths when saltwater baths are within reach. So far as the cost is concerned, we trust that the Council will issue very cheap season tickets for children, with special provision for family tickets. No' doubt this will be readily agreed to. —Ed. N.E.51.) iTo the Editor.) Sir, —I note in your leading article that you advocate a public bath at the Port. You point out the great advantage to the children of Nelson. Do you know that Nelson has a septic tank that is not working, and on top of that the other system just operates into the tank, and it is run out into the harbour? That would be a very dirty bath for children and. adults. After a bath like that, I think the sooner they got home and got a clean bath'it would be better for them and their health. My idea is that a public bath is not o"ne of the clean things it is cracked up to be. Any person with 3d can go in and get a bath—it does not matter what disease they have. Then after 20 or 30 baths in the water, is it fit for children to splash in, and get it into their little stomachs ? I will leave mothers to. say at the ballot-box on the 17th. I am, etc., W. K. TURNER. (The correspondent's fears have been proved to be groundless.—Ed. N.E.M.)