SHADE TREES AND SHELTER TREES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9125, 6 August 1888, Page 3

SHADE TREES AND SHELTER TREES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—The timely and judicious attention which the pretty avenue of shade trees in Grey-street are just now receiving will result in greatly beautifying and adapting them to the situation, and ought to go faltowards dispelling the prejudices of those who so persistently clamoured for the extermination of the trees from Hobsonstreet. I would hope that the discriminating taste displayed in Grey-street may be extended to, and cause the removal of, that unsightly clump of shelter trees which have too long encumbered the junction of Grey and Queen streets. The site which these occupy was understood to be intended for a town hall, and this circumstance had considerable prominence given to it when the Council were leasing their allotments opposite; and doubtless had the desired effect on the minds of the too-confiding purchasers. Kut the allotments being placed, other influence located the municipal quarters in a different place, and those unattractive shelter trees are still allowed to remain. While their removal would undoubtedly improve the aspect of this part of the city, it would at the same time be bub rendering a small meed of justice to the adjacent municipal tenants, whose rents form no inconsiderable contri bution to the funds of the city.—l am, &c, Vista. THE THAMES HARBOUR BOARD. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The people of this provincial district have reason to be proud of their newspapers, particularly, I think, for the way in which you have stood out for the rights and liberties of every section of the: people of New Zealand. The Press has become the medium of conveying to the highest courb of justice—public opinion—the facts and arguments on every conceivable subject. As such I wish to bring before an intelligent and justice-loving people the facts of the case as relating to the Thames Harbour Board and the residents on the Waihou River, of which I am one. In your issue of Wednesday last, I think, you publish a letter from the secretary to the above-named Board to the manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Thames, in which he says that as Messrs. Bagnall Brothers have not paid some £96, and some other people about £30, therefore the Thames Harbour Board cannot meet its liabilities. With respect to the first part of his allegation referring to Messrs. Bagnall Brothers, admitting for the sake of argument that they do owe £06 to the Harbour Board, is it not a monstrous state of affairs when a firm doing but a moderate business can be victimised to such an extent ? That a public body composed of men supposed to be men of " light and leading " could perpetrate such a barefaced act of spoliation in this country and this age would be almost inconceivable were it not that we have incontestable evidence of its truth. The members of the abovenamed firm have by years of laborious and unremitting toil succeeded in doing what ought to be the ambition of every man in the country to do, viz., by hard work to carve a home out of the wilderness, but when they have so done, behold an irresponsible and impecunious public body seizes on them as fitting victims to be publicly plundered, for, to claim dues or taxes without having made adequate return is rightly culled plunder. It may be necessary to explain that the wharves, etc., over which we ship timber belong to and were erected by the Hauraki Sawmill Company ; and the Harbour Board has not expended a penny on them, neither in the way of repairs nor otherwise for which it can claim wharfage, in fact, before the Board was in existence timber was shipped away from here, and if we succeed in getting free from their clutches we will still be able to do so, because the river will remain to us, in common with the other residents on it. J ust here I may say that a few years ago a large block of land was cut up and sold in small lots to settlers, who depend.on selling the timber growing on their land to enable them to tide over the firsfe years of trial which ensue to all who take up bush land. But this Board, vampire-like, fastens on to them also, and claims shipping dues on every bag of potatoes, every box of butter, every hide ; in fact, so capacious is its maw it ie only beaten by the tariff of the General Government, thus hinderin" , settlement and preventing industrious and capable men getting a fitting reward for toil and hardships of which the members of the Harbour Board know nothing ; and all this in the name of law and justice. Is it to be wondered at, sir, that there is an exodus of hardworking men from a country where professional politicians have obtained such power and are able to pass measures which not only tend to restrict trade but also to confiscate private property, for the bye-law under which the Board claims £9(5 for a period of nine months as our contribution to their funds practically confiscates a capital sum of £'2000 in order that the people of the Thames may have the luxury of a Harbour employing a harbour master, one man and one boy. Truly, sir, I think that in this we have reached the limit when forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and when it becomes necessary to defend, in the interest of common commercial and political righteousness, rights held sacred in every other civilised land, and which, when assailed, are met with force if all other means fail to give irotection. Had there been in the actions f the Thames Harbour Board through all liis affair one redeeming feature—even one fault that leaned (x> virtue's side, then I could forgive them, knowing that through ignorance they did it,—but through it all has been sfcown only the spirit which actuated Shylock in the well-known play of Shakespeare, the bond was forfeit and the pound of flesh must be had, even if ruin dire and vast were the result. Sir, we confidently appeal from the self-sufficient Court of this local body to the larger and more intelligent opinion of the general public, which in democratic countries is the Court of final appeal, knowing that when all the facts are fully known, only contempt and confusion will be the lot of a body of men who, in their official capacity, could be guilty of such a piece of bungling and unfairness.—l am, &c, H. N. Bagnall.