RANFURLY OR NASEBY?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19248, 12 August 1924, Page 11

RANFURLY OR NASEBY?

TO THK EJDITOB. . • Sie, —Your correspondent, "A Ranfurly Wellwisher," in his letter which appeared in your issue of August 8, says that Nasebyites 3eem to be sadly disgruntled over the projected removal of " their " hospital and county buildings. Kindly allow me to inform him that the people of Naseby have sufficient intelligence to know that the buildings referred to are not locally owned property, and they also know that the Ranfurly "boosters" havo no right to lay special claim to them. Your correspondent advances the central position of Ranfurly to bolster up his argument. Ra-nfurlyites havo ridden that poor old horse to death, and it is now time they found a new steed. He makes use of a quotation well known in legal phraseology, but it would take a clever lawyer indeed to convince the Nasebyites and ratepayers of Maniototo that there is any need for the •proposed alterations. The ratepayers know that the money which would be spent on this mad venture can be used to better purpose, and if a fow individuals find the advancing progress of Ranfurly like unto that of the snail, then they should own up that they have made a mistake in goinsr there, and not try to rob ,a neighbouring town of its buildings to save the situation. Weddorburn is the true centre of the Maniototo County, and as Ranfurly is only a mile or two nearer to Wedderhurn than Naseby is, the centrally situated plea is too ridiculous for serious consideration. Nasoby people contributed more towards the erection of the hospital than any other part of the county. Can your correspondent refute that? He seems to be surprised that the movement should meet with any opposition. I quote the old saying : " There is no need for locking the door after the horse is stolen." Reference is also made by " A Ranfurly Wellwisher " to that 40 acres of land which is to be the redeeming glory of Ranfurly in the future and it is urged that " along their beautiful walks poets and romancers can bo bred." Oh ! save us from, such people! A merciful Providence has provided institutions for such creatures as would oven attempt to make poetry on what your correspondent calls " leafy shades." Such empty vapourings call for no further comment. In years to corno Naseby residents will take pride in telling their children of the small Quantity of iotsa.m which drifted from lha_ "backwash" and caused the present "big hum" at Ranfurly.—T am, etc., Common' Sense. DISLOYALTY AT LEAGUE FOOTBALL MATCH. TO THE EDITOn. Sib, —Your article on tho disloyalty shown at the League football match on Saturday was very timely. This was not only noticeable amomr a section of tho spectators, but the pfoyers on both sides were also 2 r ° ss offenders, because, instead of paying due respect to the playing of "God Save ■ the King," by, at any rate, remaining stationary, they continued throwing the ball round to each other and completely ignoring tho tune. This implies either ignorance or studied disloyalty. One sectarian paper makes tho boast that 19 players iof one of the teams are adherents to the religion advocated by it. After Saturday's disloyal exhibition, I suppose it is proud of its supporters, because tho paper itself was never a strong loyal advocate. It is high time the big loyal section of our people took a hand against the studied insults repeatedly flaunted at them by these disloyalists, and show thorn that we arc a loyal British people, and stand four square for tho British Empire. As your articlo says, if these people are not satisfied to live under the British flag, let them get out. No orio asks thorn to stop. They would bo a very good riddance. They havo been tolerated too long.—l am, etc., Pkotestaxt.