MR BARTON’S MEETING.

Evening Star, Issue 3483, 22 April 1874, Page 3

MR BARTON’S MEETING.

To the Editor Sib, —Permit me, through the medium of your columns, to afford Mr Barton an opportunity of apologizing to myself and the public ® r ® 9 e t°° late. I am not the author of the letters m the * Southern Mercury,’ which seem t? , u® arou *ed the bile of my learned friend, ilut from information received,” I believe every word in them to bo true.—Yours, &c., •p. Vincent Pyke. Dunedin, April 22. _ To the Editor. Bast night I attended Mr Barton’s meeting. In the course of his address, he said : It was true that at the last Provincial Council that he ii in i i UBt before its dissolution, he was compelled to go up to the Court of Appeal in Weilington, and he did not think he could be fairly blamed for that, considering how important was the matter on which he was engaged. That was the only time he was away from his constituents when he should have been present. If tboy would acknowledge that tbeir members should be paid—and he had always held that they should—then they would be entitled to say that he had no right to leave the Council bn other business.” Sir, I would ask the electors 1 if, bemuse Mr Barton was not paid to represent

them in the Provincial Council, is that sufficient excuse for him to acknowledge neglecting their interests? I see, on reference to the Blue Books, Mr Barton only voted 38 times in 167 divisions. Alas 1 a much worse representative we could not elect.—l am, he,, Observer. Dunedin, April 22. To the Editor . Sir, —In the report of your contemporary (the * Otago Guardian ’) on Mr Barton’s meet ing at the Masonic Hall, last night, Mr Barton is reported to have said :—“lt had been said that he_ had not attended to his duties in the Provincial Council.' That was as untrue as it could be. It had been said he had only been present at thirty-seven or thirty-eight divisions out of 100. Did that show that he neglected his duty ? (No.) If sent to the Upper House, lie should do the same thing. It was his habit, it he did not thoroughly understand a question, not to vote upon it.” Sir, I would ask your readers if Mr Barton could only understand thirty-seven or thirty-eight questions out of 100 in the Provincial Council—which he admits and glorifies in—can the electors have confidence in him to represent them in the more important position of member of the House of Representatives; and, sir, I would go still further, and ask if it would be safe for the City to have a representative that would say he could only understand thirty-seven or thirtyeight subjects under debate, out of 100, and therefore he is innocent to the balance of sixtytwo Acts, however bad they might be when passed; simply because he had not sufficient intellect to vote on them. —I am, &c., _ An Old Victorian. Dunedin, April 22.