Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 160, 3 May 1859, Page 3

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Colonist,

Sm,—So the £500 moved for by Mr. Dodson in the Council is to be handed over to the tender mercies of the Board of Works! Can any of your readers state a reason for so funny a proceeding ? Have the doings of the said " Board " been so satisfactory that money should be voluntarily placed at their disposal to be recklessly ? squandered ? The compulsory tax there is no help for, unless the supine public " button up their breeches'pockets and strike."

An answer to this question may be given by pointingto Collingwood-street Bridge, and the engineering works "now 'in progress" in the vicinity of that novel composite construction; by recalling public attention to the almost-forgotten "culvert;" by requesting the public to look at the dyke-works and "conduits" in the neighborhood of Campbell's mill lead, and admire the taste displayed by the said " Board " in converting grassy slopes into dirty precipices, to the great danger of people's necks and limbs.

Any one of the above evidences of the lack of commonest sense in any one individual ot the said " Board," is quite sufficient ground for protesting against further funds being placed at its disposal. It is not at all surprising to any but " painfully placid" men, that the Superintendent should have pumped a little cold water on the application of our worthy and ardent Wakapuaka councillor, when he ascertained the destination of the money; and he is much to be commended for his prudence in this affair as well as in others.

Can any one tell why the shameful waste of public .money is permitted, especially by an incomplete "Board;" or why the vacancies in such "Board" have not been filled up by the election of members who. perhaps, might have some influence in preventing nearly all the unjustly extorted money being spent uselessly, and for the especial benefit of a few individuals?

As some excuse for the " Board," the following quotation from one of Lord Bathurst's letters may not be inappropriate :—" All corporations of men are perpetually doing injustice to individuals. I have often reflected (from what causes it arises I know not) that the majority of a society are honest men, and would act, separately, with some humanity, and according to the rules of morality; yet, conjunctively, they are hard-hearted, determined villains." *?r April 26.

To the Editor of the Colonist. Sir, —On Wednesday a large number of persons were summoned for the Education Rate, some paid it with the expenses previous to going into Court, several did not appear, and some pleaded, poverty, and one of the latter class declared he would not send his children to the Government school (as I understood) to be made blackguards of. The Magistrate, having nothing else to do in the matter but to administer "the law," gave judgment against the defaulters in all cases; but I believe one case was postponed, on the plea of exemption, until next Wednesday, when an interesting argument no doubt will be brought forward to shew the justice of it. Now, although a variety of reasons were adduced on Wednesday, the real one is repugnance to this abominable poll tax upon every housekeeper. It is useless to attempt to palliate or disguise this fact, and all thinking men ought to strain every nerve, systematically, to get rid of this odious incubus. No redress will be obtained unless through our representatives by the means of association, and they must be made to know and understand, if they will not condescend to ascertain the facts by personal inquiry, the amount of disgust entertained by a large proportion of persons to this precious tyranny. Yours .tc, WAT TYLER,

To the Editor of the Colonist. Sir, —The particular attention of the Inspector of Schools is directed to ii paragraph in your, prudish contemporary of Wednesday last, relating to a Boarding. School at Brighton. His strong advocacy of the "mixed" principle will be much supported by the sorrowful tale there told.

To the Editor of the Colonist,

Sir, —Many of your readers are doubtless not aware that under the title of the Naval and Military Settlers' Bill, the land of the province is heing voted away in amounts varying from X'3o to .-£3OO to those who have had the good fortune to have served in either the army or the navy, as thus— £300 to every naval or military officer who gives his " word of honor " to reside in the province for two years; and £60 and £30 respectively to every non-commissioned officer and private who has resided in the province for two years. Why this distinction ? Is the " word of honor " of a sergeant or private not to be taken equally with that of an officer ? Bah! Such distinctions are sickening. Yet they are perpetuated by gentlemen who, on the hustings, will tell you that " all men are equal." But why should we give our land to naval or military men any more than to other settlers? Do they form a superior class of colonists ? Are they fond of giving their gratuitous services for the public benefit on any occasion ? They may be, and some of them are, extremely good settlers; but why should we give them land unless they shew their superiority ? If, as in France, the conscription was in force in Great Britain, it would be a graceful act on our part to offer to the discharged soldier a home and a freehold; but enlistment is purely voluntary, and "gentlemen" adopt the service, in many instances, from anything but patriotic motives. As for the twaddle about rewarding heroes for fighting our country's battles, &'c, I should like to know what battles are fought by the retired paymasters in the navy and in the militia (alluded to by Dr. Monro in the Council the other evening) who have each received i!300 worth of Nelson land as a reward for honoring the province by adopting it as their residence.

The bill is, 1 hear, to be passed on Tuesday night; but I hope even this humble appeal will induce the representatives of the people to require some better reasons than have yet been urged in support of the principle, before they vote away our heritage for any such purpose—before they perpetuate such insulting class-distinctions. I am, &c, . . . A SUBSCRIBER. '

To the Editor of the Colonist.

Sin, —In your publication of 19th April, I see a! letter signed " Spectemur Agendo," about the cricket match between the Motueka and Riwaka* Clubs, played on Riwaka ground. He says a correspondent writes the detail of the match', but " omitted giving an illustration of the baWs transition off the bat to the opposite wicket." ; I do not know where he was standing at the time he saw what he gives as his illustration of the ball that put Croucher out. But I now tell him, and any person whom it may concern, that the ball was struck direct into Croucher's wicket, and not as he says, about two feet out of the line. He then says, "it glanced off the palm of W. Askew's hand." I heard nothing of that on the ground, nor did I see it. He next makes a great mistake when he says, "that it was the Motueka umpire and several of their men," &c. Our umpire (Mr. F. Ball) was standing at my wicket at the time and was not appealed to., . I myself told Croucher to go out, not because I thought he was out, but because the umpire gave that as his decision. , ■

Lastly, he says, "Your correspondent insinuates that if Croucher," &c, , &c. I think "Spectemur Agendo" must have made another mistake when he read that as from your correspondent. I understood that to be your own opinion given after you had seen the score.on both sides; and if he looks at it again, I think he will find he has made a mistake. I remain, yours &c, ..... : JOHN GEOKGE KNYVETT. Motueka, April 22nd, 1859, :

.''■■••■ To the Editor of the Colonist. Sin,—Will you kindly insert the following few lines, from one who is often a sufferer from that prevailing vice of our colony, "the abuse of strong drinks." It is with the utmost reluctance that I take this mode of redressing my grievance, but (the truth must be told) I am the mother of a large family, and 'tis more on my children's account than my own, that I am urged to do so. My husband, when sober, is an industrious and hardworking mail, but unfortunately for me and my children, not far from our dwelling, stands one of those houses of public entertainment which, aided by strong liquors, skittles and cards, draw many a father from his home, and many a young man into reckless and dissolute habits. I have no wish to be unjust or personal in my complaints; but when I know, by bitter experience, that a house, which is intended chiefly to provide a home and refreshment for the wearied traveller, is made the medium of emptying the pockets, muddling the brains, and causing, oftimes, wrangling and quarrelling among the neighbors, I feel compelled to speak out, and ask if something should not, and cannot be done in the matter? It is a bitter trial, for a wife, to have to fetch a husband home, late at night, from a public house, and perhaps snatch the cards from the table where gambling is going on; but, bitter as it is, there is no alternative, except that of waiting anxiously through the silent hours of the night, expecting some evil to befal, and feeling that the money which is wanted for the sleeping young ones, is gradually being squandered away. The Provincial Council is now sitting; could not a memorial be drawn up, signed and sent in? Are there no earnest and right thinking men in the neighbourhood, who, from motives of patriotism and humanity, would be willing to unite in calling the attention of the members to the evils resulting from intemperance^ and urge" them to take sucn steps as may wisely and justly be taken towards checking those evils ? Let the law which defines the time for closing public houses be strictly enforced! Let all gambling be strictly prohibited! and lastly, let the man who supplies his neighbour with sufficient drink to rob him of his senses, or in other words, make him drunk, be held legally (as he is already morally) responsible for the consequences. A WIFE. Stoke, April 19th, 1859.