LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1331, 8 January 1912, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE TRAMWAY TROUBLE

Sir,—Your editorial this morning, calls for continent outside the ranks- of the combatants. '.If the position be, set up that tho fighters are best able to look after their own case, (he papers'will have to bo moro guarded and less one-sided in their comment. You say in- so- many words (hat the men's demand far an in-" dependent tribunal infers a claim to try' the council. And why hot: j . 'The answer is to be found in Councillor Trevor's answer to your inquiries, viz., "It is now more a question between the council, rather than Fuller, and tho 'union." If so, why shouht tho council be arbiter? As a matter'of fact, this harping on the mastership of councillors is -.-ausing all the trouble. They are not the masters, but the trustees. If they had been real masters, the I rouble would never have arisen. The public arc the masters, and when the public come to know tho true inwardness of tho caso they will find that alt right does not centre in one small head, and all tho wrong in the other live hundred; and, further, that most (ivcstions have two sides, not one. When the five hundred get their case equitably before the public, one. man will no longer, and never again, be able to hold uj) a service of,the dimensions of this one, and the earlier this is' done the soonei a healthier toiie'will' pervade the atmosphere of the management in particular, and municipal control ge'.iei'.iliv.—l am etc., ■■•■'■ HENRY BODLEY. January G. CONTRAST IN VOTING. NORTH AND, SOUTH ISLANDS. . Sir,—ln a late'issue of your widelycirculated and liiueli-estceiued journal the above question was discussed when yon quoted the opinions, oi- statements, set lorth in the Christchurch. "Press" and "Star" giving reasons 'why Canterbury returned so many members avowed suppliers of the Ward Ministry. The "Press," it appears, considers it was on account of tho boundaries of electorates being so altered, that the Canterburyites are .somewhat conservative" in their views, and that the Prohibitionists had united in their efforts'to support certai a candidates. With all due respect for tho opinions expres-sed by tho "Press," as -.1 fully endorse" its views that it is quite time we should have, a change .of. administrator's, as tho present "stickers" to the Government benches have not only.beeotne effete, but have proved' themselves utterly, incapable of filling such important positions;-but the-"Press" must not flout thV opinions expressed' by a'majority'.of the' electors, as it lias done in the past. I refer more' particularly to the Prohjbitionists. Bead-' crs of the "Press" will, remember how any. views, or propositions, brought forward, or advocated, by "the late T. E. Taylor, of Christchurch, were opposed.by the "Press." Christchurch folk, bo they conservative or otherwise, manifested their appreciation of the deeds done by tho said T. E. Taylor by over 50,000 attending his funeral. As a student of human nature, X find, notwithstanding the facilities we now enjoy for self-im-provement, there is a considerable' element of the porcine 'still' manifested, in us. The majority of folks wont'bo driven' Writing to a 'friend'in Canterbury lately, I expressed similar, views to the' above. I stated, my-opinion that the-reason so. many supporters of Wardism Were returned for Canterbury, was that .the voters just came to the conclusion, that they would go in opposition to' tjio views of the, Christchurch "Press."—l am, etc.,. •" •'■ H. JOLLY. Hokitika, January 2, 1912.,' A REPLY TO "FAIR-PLAY." Sir,—The points raised by "Fair-play" in your issue of January 1 is « repetition his former letter on this subject. "Fair-play" is simply'begging the question. He has not refoJVed to the ob-, jections I raised in my former letters; and 1 would, refer him to the correspondence on this matter. If he will look lip your issue of August 5 or G, he will find my objections stated. This was in answer to a former sermon'by Archdeacon Harper on "Christian Liberty." I stated.'my objections then against "politics from the pulpit," and I have not changed them. Indeed, I am more convinced now' that it has done St. Peter's a lot of harm. "Fair-play" need not try and put words in my mouth, he would probably have liked me to have stated what he supposes I had meant. Well, I stated what T meant, and I meant what I said; .and "Fnir-plav" need not try and (wist it round to suit his view of my objections. "Fair-play" should-try- and give- us 1 his arguments', in favour of "politics from the pulpit." If is no justification because that particular sermon fell in with "Fair-play's" views that 'politics should be introduced into the' pulpit, because some other minister might proclaim some other views which might be opposed to "Fair-play's,-" and, judging from his letters, he would very probably 'object to'such, il might remind "Faifplay" that ho has a very narrow view of the Church ho professes to belong to; and there is no provision made for such utterances. Tf the clergy, of the Anglican Communion cannot preach the Gospel for all, then they should not lend themselves to any body or class in the Church. I should also, remind "Fairplay" that tho Prayer. Book makes provision in - the "Public Baptism of Infants":—"Ye shall call upon them to hear sermons"—not political discourses as the Archdeacon has seen fit to give. Evidently "Fair-play" and a few of his tneiuls seem (o imagine that, they are the salt of the earth. "Fair-play" still harps at me, not seeing the other side of the question. Well, perhaps I have seen the wrong side of tho picture as much as "Fair-play." He should know that the drink traffic has claimed for its victims some of the best men in the country, and has dragged them down; and I would remind him that it is from his side—"the moderate," I suppose 1 should say—that most of the victims come. I should also remind him that 1 do not approach this 'subject'from a purely personal pcintof view,, as it is nothing to me that there is drinkin°saloons in New Zealand, as I have been a teetotaller for a good manv vears now, and, with God's help, 1 intend to remain so. "Fair-play's" profession of sorrow for me may be well meant, though he can keep his crocodile tears for sonic of his friends, he might need them. I don t. want his pity. Finally, "Fuk--play advises me not io make NVLicen.se m .y religion. No, neither should, "Fairplay and jus friends make' tlie support of the drink traffic theirs.—l am etc THOS. M. MILLIGAn! January 3. , THE MOKAU CASE.

Sir,—My attention .Whs recently- been drawn to a Press Association wire'of November 7 last sent over the Dominion containing a letter from a Mr. C. A. Loiighniin, of Palmerston North, solicitor, purporting to reply to a statement alleged to have been made by Mr. W. 1\ Massey, M.P., that I think requires correction. 1 should say that I have had no hand in the controversy initiated bv Mr.- Loughnan consequent upon the exposure of Mr. Massey of certain facts' in relation to the, Mokau transaction; in fact,'there has been no necessity for my intervention, in as much as Mr. Massey'*- charges stand fully proven—as the'rejection a,t the polls of- Sir John Finillay and Messrs. M'Nab, i'owlds, and Jeuuings, who have all had more or less to do with the property— as well' as the voice of the electorates generally—strongly indicate. In paragraph 8 of his concoction, Mr. .Loughnan appears to misunderstand an allusion made by Mr. Massey. He states: "and the proceeds from the untrue assumption that Mr. Lewis's 'interests in the properly were valueless, it having been established an-1 sworn to by .Mr. .lones at the Mokau Inquirv that he had been offered ,£IOO,OOO for these very leaseholds by a London syndicate." Mr. Loiighniin has rather jumbled his meaning, but from this reference he appears to b'e/under tho impression that Mr. Massey was referring to the value of the leaseholds, here, I think, he is under a mistake. The meaning was, no doubt,' that Lewis's' interests in the leaseholds were (not an untrue . assumption) valueless, and if Mr. Loughnan will look up the evidence again ho will see, in a separate line by Mr. Massey, -the words "Sir. Jones's claim stands good now." I therefore, assume that, if Mr: Loughnan will souurate, in his mind, the value of

(lie properly from Lewis's interests in it, lie will arrive more correctly at whal; Mr. Massey intended "lo convey.. Itis 'scarcely' necessary to. trouble-Mr. -Massey .on this particular, point at: this stage, lie . having effectually' dealt with '. the l'olmerslon piffle long ago, and has now other more important fish -lo; fry. Other inaccuracies in Mr. Lougiuian's - various effusions' through f ho", press .1 ai'ri not at", this moment' concerned'with—l he value of Mr. Lewis's interests.in the leases, tor-that of others, has yet lo bo determined.- ■' "

1 believe 1 may say; without: reserve, that press-controversy would have; been unnecessary, 'or at any rate'much i curtailed, and a huge fraud prevented, hud the 'Government given effect to the :.recommendation of the Legislative Council Committee of 11108 to set up inquiry into tho whole case by "competent tribunal." That inquiry has : never yet been.held. This Government did not desire the public inquiry recommended by the committee of 1!)08. II will liavo to come, and by competent tribunal this finie, I hope.—l am, etc.; : J. JONES. Mokau, ; January.3, 1912.