To the Editor of the "Nortu-Carina Dairy News."
S1m,—The article in your yesterday's issue on the subject of River Conservancy has at least had the good effect of seriously attracting public attention to the subject in general and to the Chamber of Commerce scheme, which Mr. Hewett has gone to Peking to advocate, in particular.
There are one or two points which your ile does not touch on and which the ordinary member of the public does not quite understand, One is, why a narrow majority, composed partly of Continentals, of " small committee of the Chamber of Commerce should be accepted as the exponent of either the opinions or the require: ments of this community, in which British and American interests still preponderate. Another is, on what grounds can the Chamber of Commerce assure the Diplomatic Body and the Chinese Government that the Shanghai Commu-ity will, as suggested, pay Tls. 200,000 to 'T's. 300,000, for Conservancy or any other work The Ratepayers slone ex levy dues on property or goods, and until they have been consulted and their views expressed, the Chamber lus no certain grounds for assuming what those views are or that they will mean voting money. The English and American residents cannot be taxed unless with their own consent expressed by x majority of votes, is questionable if French Settlement land-owners or any continental Land-o! ers can be, and your assumption that the Diplomatic Body can "apportion the charges" is only toa limited, if to any, extent true. The scheme savins a very cit in front and horse behind sort of one, Mr. Hewett is not authorised to submit any working plan—unless it can be us-naved that Mr. do Ttijke's has been accepter. the Diplomatic Body accepts the Cuanber's scheme as it is known to the public, that distinguished Corps is linble to. find the Community later refusing the money. 'Phot would create a position of ridicule that will surely be provided against. Worse still, it would make, if crested, things infinitely worse thu' they are in Conservancy matters.
Che wise course would seem to be to take public opinion in some form, whether by public meeting or otherwise, on the Chamber's proposal. If it is to be upset is better it should be done now than Tater, IFt em be supported its success is nearer certainty. If a better cen be suggested, lut it be considered. The land owners whom you suggest as opponents are not more short-sighted than some others, nor any more _ultra-conservati than owners of other interests. No one usually wants to commit himself till sees whether he really wants what I being asked to pay for and is fairly certain he will get the best value for his money. There is riy harm in asking, does the Chamber's scheme meet these demands Tam, ete, 26th June.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.