Correspondence.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 119, 30 September 1868, Page 3

Correspondence.

& — TO THE BDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir, — \ am very glad to find that a memnir of the City Council has caused the^ public to be enlightened hs to who made the blunders in the Burgess Roll. I can't un'ifrstund, though, winic the "nearly in-s'M-inonr.table ditfieuliies " sp ken of by Councillor Duncan are, or were. It seems to me that to take a Hatepayers Roll and mark cffi, on any particular ilav, the names of those persona who have paid their rates, and then r.o make a copy of the said roll, omitting the names of those who have not paid, is about one of the easiest things m life. " But Mr Go "don <:ouM not do it, although we are told by Councillor Janitson, that he is "sure vlr (Jordon had done his best!" If Mr Gordon did do his best, I wonder Mr Editor what his worst would be — something very dreadful no doubt. Again, Councillor Duncan says " the Committee could riot impute any undue negligeuce to him" (Mr Gord< n). Well, t<ir, if the blunders in the Koll are not the result of undue negligence, they must be caused by habitual negligence, to which the City Council has, I suppose, by this time, got pretty well accustomed. But if the acknowledged negligence waß not of the undue description, I should like to know what would be the result of the exercise of a little undue negligence on Mr Gordon's part. Your obedient servant, ATTENTION.