Correspondence.

Waikato Times, Volume I, Issue 11, 25 May 1872, Page 2

Correspondence.

[We do not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed by our correspondents.] f To the Editor of (h". Waik itu Tim's:) S IRi —I have seen with regret in your issue of the 23rd inst., a letter headed " Our R.M. Again," and signed " Eairplav." How your correspondent is entitled to his assumed name, I can at once answer by stating that Government officers are not allowed to defend themselves in the press against attacks however erroneous or false they may be, consequently " Fairplay's " scurrilous attack on a dofenceless man is not quite in accordance with his nom ie plume. In personal attacks of this nature I am of opinion that the only fair and open course is for the writer to sign hiareal name, and thereby give the public an opportunity of judging of the amount of credence to be placed upon it. The writer's own signature would in that case be a guarantee of its justice and test of the amount of credibility to be attached to it. However, as to the lett er in question, 1 am assured that the R.M., when Chairman of the School Committee, made no objection to the road in question (to the wharf) as it was laid out at that time; but surely it does not follow, that he should not object to the whole of the frontage to the main road, where the building now used as the courthouse and school-room stands, being monopolised by the Highway Board for the road. The road, as it is, is just sufficient for all purposes, and why it should now be enlarged to a width of 99 feet, is a question for the Road Board to solve, when so many other works more necessary are left

undone. Bat I put it to the Board, "whether one of their number has not some latent interest in any sections at the termination of the porponed wharf road. If this be not the case, 1 plead guilty to being wrongfully informed, but I am of opinion that the new road will improve this particular soction. In regard to the scurrilous and lowmiuded insinuation regarding the applioation to the Board by our Jt.M. and others "to gravel a certain pathway by which his children might," an your correspondent elegantly expresses himself, "walk to Rchool without soiling their boots." I am aware that he has only one child going to the school in question, and I believe there are sit least 10 other children attending the same school, in whom f presume the Li. M. has no interest. The application was signed by six others, and I leave the public to judge between them. and the Board as to whether their application was entitled to respect or not when, with the exception of the Chairman of the Board, it included the names of the highest ratepayers in the district. Our Town Board may depend npon this, that they will not endure for ever, and L would strongly recommend thein to obtain the assistance of more able allies than " Fairplay," and that he will not be allowed to dictate to the West Hamilton settlers without question. As unlike "Fairplay, I attach my name. I may state openly, not only my own opinion, but that of many others whom "Fairplay 1 ' represents, (as a tool) certain parties whom 1 will not at present name, who would be better employed attending to their own business, however slight it may be, than finding fault with our Li. M., who has hitherto in every respect earned by liis corteous and obliging manner to all who have occasion to apply to him their respect and good-will. John Km ox.