RE TOWN HALL.

Waipa Post, Volume V, Issue 210, 6 May 1913, Page 3

RE TOWN HALL.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR,—I should like to thank you for your action in publishing and supplementing the complaints of the talented entertainer Hugard, anent our Town Hall. It is indeed a standing disgrace. Every right thinking person is satisfied that it was in no carping spirit but in the interests of the town and for the comfort of its residents that you wrote as you did. It was doubtless a'disagreeable duty—it is always so much easier to smooge and snivel —but I, with many others, sincerely hope that you will continue to fearlessly attack such disgraceful indifference as has been shown in connection with the Town Hall. I won't touch on any of the other cases of dilatoriness mentioned by you, nor the score you did not mention. Neither you nor any of us have any desire to harass the Board, or to be in any way personal, but if this " held over," " under consideration/' " awaiting reports" singsong does not soon give way to something better, then there is trouble ahead and somebody will have to go under. It is most disagreeable to have to write so, but unless there is going to be some sort of finality to some of the Board's urgent business, then it is for you and your correspondents to speak and speak plainly. —I am, etc.,

HEART-SICK

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, —How very stupid of you to suggest that the ' under consideration ' plea should be relegated to the board's wastepaper basket. Don't you know ? you ought to—that that very useful article of furniture in the board's office is chock full of letters from the Chamber of Commerce, and further than that, the stock pleas, excuses and explanations of the Board would'nt stop there. They are so threadbare and flimsy they'd float out and away. —lam, etc..

L. DOVER

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, —Your rabid criticism of the management of our Town Hall occasioned me much surprise. Your feelings on this matter are altogether too extreme. The ratepayers of Te Awamutu are strongly averse to such extraordinary departures as advocated by you. I may point out that our Town Hall has answered our purpose for well nigh fifteen years and is now in just as good repair as when built. We have jogged along alright for a couple of decades. Why worry, why introduce uncalled complication involving exertion ? We should strongly resent interference from itinerant jackanapes of strolling players, who heap uncalled-for abuse on our city fathers without adequate reason. These wretched stage vagabonds should certainlv be put in their place and kept there. We don't want'em. lam glad to see the Town Board pursuing the very, very cautious policy of their predecessors and carefully holding themselves aloof from fanatics, who call themselves progressive. What in the name of creation do we want with waterworks, electric lights and footpaths ? I, as a ratepayer, very strongly deprecate the quite unnecessary expenditure of money on these sort of luxuries. We don't want to borrow money, we don't want waterworks, we don't want lights in the streets, we don't want drainage, we don't want trees planted in the streets. Here have we been studying and practising economy for untold years. We have jogged along peacefully without all these new fangled notions. What more, in the name of Izaak Walton do we want? We don't want anything, only " Peace, perfect peace," that's why we have got the Town Board that we've got. Far, far from the madding crowd, let our epitaph always be " Rest in Peace." Now Mr Editor, I very, very strongly resent that odious spirit of carping criticism which appeared in the last issue ot your journal, and Sir, if you don't refrain from inflamatory articles, such as the one referred to, I shall be compelled to ask you to remove my name from your subscribers' list. Enough.—l am, etc.,

O. HEERDEGEN