CORRESPONDENCE.

Waipa Post, Volume I, Issue 8, 12 May 1911, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our correspondents' opinions are their own ; the responsibility of editorial items makes sufficient ballast for the editor's shoulders. It is necessary that all letters for publication should, bear the name of the write}'—not necessarily for publication, but as evidence of good faith.]

(to the editor.) SIR —While realising that the Town Board is doing all in its power to form footpaths throughout the town, I have still another request to make. Property owners, in many cases, are not sufficiently alive to realise that the advantages of having a clean footpath are somewhat small, through live hedges being alio we cl to grow half-way over the path, and as these men cannot see the necessity of trimming back the undergrowth, I would suggest that the Town Board compel them to do so. Curiously enough in the majority of cases, these uncared for hedges are the property of men who have resided in the town for a considerable time, and who should have the advancement of the town sufficiently at heart to effect these improvements of their own accord. —I am, etc.,

PEDESTRIAN.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, —In your issue of April lßth. I asked for some explanation as to the mysterious end that came, to the grant of £2OO for footpaths in the Teasdale Settlement. You have noi; as yet enlightened me (and the many other equally anxious ratepayers) and I trust I may not be considered impatient if I renew my request. The reason for your silence I presume, is attributable to the want of reliable information in this very impor'.ant matter, but is it not your duty, Sir, to obtain such, and publish the result of your enquiries? . From information obtainable (let it be worth what it will) it would seem that the Town Board is deserving of the sympathy of the ratepayers in this matter, but the Board will alienate this sympathy unless it takes steps to enlighten those responsible for putting them in charge of our affairs. The money was applied for, and granted to the Board. This was followed by a notification that a vote had been transferred to the

County Council." "How, and why, and by whom wa's'this. brought about ? This is wh&frwe Want to know, and what w£uh;ave a right to ask and expect fmm. the Town Board. It is plainly a> the duty of that body to fully ,|xplain., If such explanation isT not forthcoming, then the Board must not grumble if the rumour . that it was through its own neglect that the money was diverted, gains ground. That however is not in my opinion correct. lis it not that the members do not, wish to stir up mud to the detriment of a member or members of the County Council ? If tha*t is so then in the opinion "of the majority of ratepayers th« Board is over generous, and failing in its duty in averting publicity being given to all the v-facts. The town has been robb'pd of £2oo—why, and at whose instigation ? That is the question which calls for a full and explicit answer. 1 with others will wait patiently for a while longer but failing your satisfying us within a reasonable time we are determined to . ask the chairman of the Town Board to convene a public meeting to discuss the matter. —I am, etc.,

RATEPAYER.