ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 746, 31 August 1878, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

THE RAILWAY STATION, TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIT,. P:u, —Surely the people of Oamaru will arouse ■.:■: to i.i-y and prevent; the Government from p|.!;..-,,„ ti-o !'ißS"nger station at tlio north side of the G-.iMvorks. This scheme seems to have not one t'ifint. The residents at that end of the town have a station of their own already at the " Belt." Would not the old Cricket Ground he by far the most generally useful site, and open to the fewest objections? The fact that Thames-street would have to be crossed twice instead of once is surely not a very terrible thing. Wliy, we'may soon have a steam tramway in Thames-street from end to end, as they ha\e in Wellington and in many other towns. A petition to. the one -Hundred gentlemen who arc to \Wtl us new week might do something-.—l am, <xc , Oamaku.

REMOVAL OP THE GRAIN TAX. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sin-, —A letter signed "J.Q.8." which appeared in your issue of the 23rd inst., and which has been pointed out to me, questions my statement that the farmers pay the tax on cornsacks. I did not think it po-n'.o'e that anyone could doubt such a truism. However, I think a very short explanation will.convince c.-cii " .T.QiB." that the farmer pays the duty on cornsacks. Take an instance where the' merchant hands sacks to the farmers to bo filled and receives them hack without any money value for the being directly referred to. Does not the merchant in arranging the price for the grain take into consideration the loss he will suffer on the sack* if he sends wheat to England or oats to Melbourne ? Or, again, does he not duly consider the price the miller will pay him, he (the miller) in turn hearing in mind that the baker willnot pay him one cent for the sacks? If " J.Q. 13." will reflect for a moment he mustadmit that New Zealand wheat would realise identically the same price in London whether the sacks it i 3 borne in paid duty or not; and as the merchant must consider the nct'returns in New Zealand, he pb%'iously allqws for the loss on sacks when deciding on the price he will buy at. The same line of argument applies directly to the millers and bakers; Bread would be the same price in New Zealand with or without a duty, and consequently tTie miller takes into consideration the gross loss he will make on the sacks, and so regulates the price at which he buys wheat. It is very gratifying to find that the Government have now decided to exempt cornsacks and flour bags from duty, and I am very pleased to know that I have assisted in bringing about the remission.—l am, &c., Geo. 'G. Stead. Christchurch, August 28,1878. MR, BORRIE'IN REPLY. TO THE F.IYITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sm,—ln your issue of Thursday appears a letter signed Poter Aitehison, in which my name is very freely mentioned. The writer seems to assume that it was I who supplied you with the report of the Awamoko meeting. In this I need scarcely say that he is at fault. He states that in opening the meeting he called on .those present to support the chair, and to give a fair hearing to each speaker ; 'a most extraordinary statement, seeing that it was Mr. Smillie who opened the meeting and asked those present to give each, speaker a fair hearing. Surely Mr. Aitehison is not so mixed up with Mr. Smillie as to forget which is which. However, that may account for Mr. Smillie during the whole of the evening trying to explain to the meeting what Mr. Aitehison meant by vatious remarks he made "when he (Mr. A.) was called upon to explain what he meant, and either could not or would not explain them himself. .Mr. Aitehison further states that your report of the meeting 'commences with an untruth and finishes with another. Now, if I remember aright, your report commenced by Mr. Smiliie being called to the chair ; thus ycur report goes on to state that Mr. Aitehison said he' had' called the meeting for the purpose of taking steps to prevent the' Road Board distributing the money to its credit at the bank, stating that it was illegal, as alLthe.,money to the credit of the district fund had to be-' spent on main district roads. Now, I do not.See where untruth''o%nes'inj"unless it is what he is reported to have said himself.

Your report ends with moving-a vote of thinks -to the chair. Ido not see where the untruth comes in there either. As writing to the public prints'- is'not my forte, I must decline to take any further notice of anything- Mr. Aitchison may write on the subject till lie refutes what I stated, at the Awanibko meeting-, viz., that his statements there were grossly incorrect; that the evidence I .brought forward in-support of ■what I then said satisfied'the meeting of its icorrectness of the resolutions passed at the meeting will show. Mr. Aitchison either could not or would not refute what I thus said, and until he does so I cannot take any further notice of what he writes- on. the subject. As that is really the point at issue, Ido not (seethe use of wandering away from it. v However, on the settlement of the Neweastle-on-Tyne ea<e, he might inform us of the verdict, as it might be of vital importance to the ratepayers of the Waitaki Road Board to know the decision on the case ho graphically related by Mr. Aitchison.—l am, &<■., L>. Boniiii;. A TOWN HALL WANTED. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENIMf MAIL. Sir, —I notice in your issue of Thursday evening a ■ paragraph relating to the'erection of a hall or theatre, and I am informed a meeting was held by a few private individuals for the purpose of taking steps to form's company to carry out the erection of a hall or ■theatre-somewhere behind the Waitaki Chambers. Whilst admitting the immediate necessity of such a requirement, more especially now that Mr. Longford intends converting the present hall into suites of rooms, which his extensive business warrants, I now submit that the question has been 100 often mooted without anything definite being done. Our Mayor agrees that'the erection of a Town Hall on the site where the Council Chambers now stands would be the ! correct thing. Then, Sir. I want to know why the work cannot bo proceeded with at once, as 1 believe the site in question was set apart for that particular I purposed Supposing the cost amounted to L4OOO or 1.5000, the rental derived from a row of shops fronting Itehou-street, together with the hall fees, would pay the interest on the capital required, independent of tiie Thames-street frontage, which conld be utilised by the Corporation offices on the ground floor, above which might be a magnificent room for curiosities or museum, also a public reading-room. We are very much behind other towns of less importance in these matter*-. Even cur neighbors at Waimatc can boast of superior hall accommodation, and I say it is a disgrace to the town to have such a paltry building in tho centre of our town occupied by the .Municipa.l authorities whilst thero arc such magnificent 'stone buildings in the neighborhood. 1■! trust the question of allowing a hall to be erected at the back of' Thames-street will be abandoned, and that our- Mayor and Councillors will immediately take the matter in hand,—l am, &c, Ax Old Rbsidkst, THE NEW THEATRE. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENKJfO MAIL. Siu, —Allow me through tho medium of your pages to express my uphiioai of tho absurdity of'two new places of public entertainment in this small town. 1 see that both a theatre and a public hall of ainu-cuient art- contemplate-.!. Do not t von think that one good theatre would he all that is required in this town ': one that can he erected at a quarter the cost of the proposed Exchange and Hall. If both buildings wore opened in this town they would simply ruin each other ; while if a theatre was built as contemplated, it would serve the purposes of the-hall, and the public taste raised by the engagement of firstclass dramatic companies to play here, whore they have heen unable hitherto m eunseqnenco of no suitable building being obtainable, (lamaru has long felt the want of such a theatre, and in my opinion is quite large enough to support it, if put under proper management, as it undoubtedly would be. The cost of this theatre would only be' about LIOOO, whereas the contemplated buildings could not be crooted for less than double the sum, and the cost, t.f which, together with the high price that must be paid for the freehold, would reach such ;;,ii amount that hut little prospect of payable dividends could be obtained. Tho rent of tho public hall would never reach what it. is stated to l)e,'namely, lAuO.—l am,&c., " ritOFRSSIONAi,."