MR MASON'S REPLY.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 626, 22 April 1921, Page 5

MR MASON'S REPLY.

(To the Editor). Sir—ln your leader of 19th inst. you issue a challenge to me. You quofe a certain Mr O’Brien (whom yovTWuote as an exponent of the principles of extreme Labour) as saying : r ‘H e would make it a crime to pay interest.” Your next question, although somewhat round-about, is intended to be read by your readers as meaning: “Will Mr Mason state whether he agrees with the principle embodied in this statement ? My answer to that question is “No, I do not agree with the principle embodied in that statement, or any principle or doctrine in any way like it. Is that clear or “straight out ?” You are not so simple-minded, Mr Editor, as to be really fearing that my election as Mayor of Pukekohe would have the slightest bearing upon any laws or doctrines concerning interest, and you may be sure I have not answered your challenge for the purpose of disposing of that silly point. Nor do you think I am likely to quibble, as you imply (and as you further Imply by a pretended quotation from my speech, which is not accurate, even according to your own report), for had you thought there was the slightest Indecision or desire to cover up anything, you certainly would have exposed it before the people at my nubile meeting, at which you were present, by asking' such questions as would have compelled me to explain myself thoroughly. No questions were asked at that public meeting on any such questions as you plead against trie, for the very.good reason that T made the matter far too clear to escape the understanding of the most humble intellect. Nor do you really think you would judge my decision or indecision by my neglect to reply to a statement reported to be made by a man whom you associate with me (whom, by the way, I had ont previously heard of, and who Is, I’-learn, a bitter and strenuous opponent of the party to which I belong), when you know perfectly well that the Times has had four years’ experience of me as ‘Mayor and has found, me possessed of very much, gieater power of decision than has ‘ bfce«HSle&sing to the Times. Nor do veu think I am what you call “A Labour Mayor.” that is to say one who connects the Mayoral office or municipal affairs with any brand of Labour doctrine whatever. Your concluding sentence commences “If Mr Mason, does not feel called upon to reply to this challenge, etc.” Exactly. You. are perfectly aware of the fact that this issue you are raising is a red herring. You are not troubled, about it. Now what is your veal oh faction to me? It is now my turn to challenge the Times, and my challenge to you is to point out to the people of Pukekohe the respect in which my policy or work as Mayor of Pukekohe lias failed. I have answered your challenge in the clearest words I can command, using in fact the “straight out” word you yourself prescribe that I should use. I Trust that you will answer mine in the same issue as this letter and in good timi for your answer to be replied to if necessary before the poll, in order that the truth may be well established. I submit to you, Mr Editor, that all your alleged objections to me are pretended objections, not real ones, and that if the elleged objection;. were non-existent you would have other objections, or at all events would under no circumstances have assisted me. You must be aware of "the fact that my policy in PuKekohe has been a success, and that the Times has frequently obstructed it, and never on any occasion assisted it: further, that my policy and works occomphshed in Pukekohe are so much the only policy that has been propounded and has been so successful that you cannot attack it (at least in any important point) without thereby attacking and opposing all progress since the first year of the formation of the Borough. What, then, is your real objection to me ? To think that your real objection is comprised in your recent leaders is to flatter Wjtir honesty at the expense of your 'lntelligence. I believe one simple fact explains the attitude the Times has always adopted, and always will adopt to me, and to all my works. My crime is this, namely, that I have convinced the ratepayers of the necessity of certain waterworks improvements as absolutely necessary to obviate great losses and the breakdown of the whole waterworks sysfcem, and I have successfully carried cut the work, whereas the owners of the Times, guided by the passions arising out of previous controversy, rather than by reasoff. would not that the waterworks were in any need of alteration whatever. My successful accomplishment of that word, to the very intense displeasure

of the Times, coupled with an inability to forget or forgive on the part of the Times, is the reason for the Times being against me or my pioposals always. It is useless, Mr Editor, that the Times would have supported me had it not feared that the election of one holding my political views would involve fearful peril, for in that case, now do you account foi your previous attitude to me or my works ? Because I did my duty as citizen and Mayor, by placing my services before the people in a time when I believd such knowledge as I had was especially useful to them, in a time when municipal policy was in great confusion, and at a time during the war when it involved the greatest sacrifice to my family and me to do so. It is not pleasant to think that I am to be regarded for ever with bitterness by the Times at the mere mention of my name in municipal affairs. If I am wrong, you will do me, and some others, a great service by pointing out the truth as to the consistent attitude of the Times to me under its present ownership, for you will remove feelings which I personally am very sorry to think should last until the grave swallows them. At the same time, Mr Editor, I am not ungrateful for small mercies, and I acknowledge that the straight-out opposition of the Times is not so unwholesome a thing as tthe more indirect tactics adopted towards me when I was in office. This leads me to hope that you may answer with directness the points I have raised. If you cannot,. I do not think any effort on your part to smother the issue in further reference to Labour will enable you to cover up the points I have nised, and you will do a great dis-serviee to Pukekohe by not clearly expelling the belief I (with others), hold and have endeavoured to set forth in this letter as to the one and only prejudice that actuates the Times at the menion of my name. There was a slight mis-report in your issue of the 15th inst. You say “No one had any right to condemn them.” I did not say “them,” but “me.” I was naturally defending myself. not others.—l am, etc.,

H. G. R. MASON