THE FUTURE OF WAIPORI.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20707, 3 May 1929, Page 10

THE FUTURE OF WAIPORI.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—As the destiny of Waipori and the need to supplement the present supply of power are live issues Just now, any scheme which would ensure an abundant supply of power should be worth investigating. Waipori has been, and is, a profitable asset for Dunedin, and it is only the fear—a real one it seems—of its not being able to cope with the needs of the community that has led those in authority to consider the advisability of selling Waipori to the Government. At Kaitangata there is an abundant supply of coal, and a steam plant could generate power to supply South Otago. The cost of - the plant would not be near what “ Manufacturer ” _ says will have to be spent on Waipori at short notice, —namely £500,000. This scheme would take the pressure off Waipori. It would also help Kaitangata, and indirectly help Dunedin, as the more prosperity there is in Kaitangata the better it is for the business people in Dunedin.—l am, etc.. Worker. Kaitangata, April SO. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. ' - TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your “ Sunday Circle ” column on Saturday last, you published a paragraph which implies that Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, in the latter years of her life, departed from her own teaching with regard to materia medica and the use of drugs. This implication is quite ’contrary to fact, as is indicated in the following passage quoted irom a statement published by the Christian Science Board of Directors in the Christian. Science Sentinel of January 26. 1929:—“ Because of aggressive propaganda, apparently circulated to discredit Mrs Eddy and to induce belief that she abandoned her own teaching (only through radical reliance on truth can scientific healing power be realised) we deem it timely to- make the following statement:— ‘ As we are informed, Mrs Eddy did not, at any time after 1866, believe in the use of any drug as a curative agent in connection with the practice of Christian Science.’” The matter printed in your paragraph is nothing more than part of a campaign of personal propaganda and resentful war on the part of a former member of the Christian Science church. It will not in the least disturb loyal students of Christian Science, and its only likeness to a bombshell is that in exploding it destroys itself. —I am, etc,, Cdthbeet S. Booth. Committee on Publication. THE KEA. TO THE EDITOB. Sib, —In my letter of April 27 1 was writing only of the mountain keas of South Westland, which appear to be a harmless race of different from their cousins that live in the Lake districts of Otago. I have never disputed the sad fact that in some localities keas have acquired a liking for fat, and that they kill sheep in order to gratify that liking. My contention is that hot every kea is a wicked bird and to me it does not seem fair that , the greedy bird-slayer should lure hundreds of innocent parrots from their mountain fastnesses to kill them at his leisure in accessible valleys. Unfortunately for its own safety-, the kea is well able to fly, and is a most inquisitive bird, and not in the least suspicious of attractive decoys. Now that not even the high Alps are a sanctuary for keas, will many birds be fortunate enough to escape at breeding time out of reach of men and guns?—l am, etc,. Taxpayer.Dunedin, May 1.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your correspondent,, “ Putangitangi ” proposes that a scientific survey should be made by unbiased men for the purpose of ascertaining if the kea destroys sheep. How could such a survey be made? The kea attacks sheep on dark, misty nights on high country, which is difficult to climb even in good weather, and on a dark night an experienced shepherd has to proceed with great caution, otherwise he may fall over a cliff. What possible chance is there of the scientific expedition ever seeing a kea attack sheep? I know shepherds who have actually seen sheep being attacked, and, further, I myself have seen numbers of sheep which have been' killed by keas, and also numbers which bore evidence of attack, but managed to get away. Fortunately, the kea, after killing the sheep, generally returns the following night to feed on the carcass, and there is a chance of its being shot. The “ competent unbiased men,” if they wanted direct evidence, would have to go with high country shepherds on dark, misty nights into rugged and rough rnountainous country, which is very dangerous. Further, the runholder may not care to advertise the fact that keas are numerous on his holding. I have never met a high country runholder or a high country shepherd who had any doubt about the havoc wrought by keas. The evidence is conclusive in spite of the fact that it is almost impossible actually to see the sheep being' attacked.—l am, etc., 1 Hjoh Country. '