The Times. Published on Tuesday and Friday Afternoons. FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1921. MR. MASON’S REPLY.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 626, 22 April 1921, Page 4

The Times. Published on Tuesday and Friday Afternoons.

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1921. MR. MASON’S REPLY.

The leader in last issue of the Times has drawn the desired information from Mr Mason. He has given a straight out and emphatic “No!” to the question asked. For this we thank the gentleman, but readers of his letter will note that he has more than answered the question asked, he has worked in quite a lot of electioneering matter which will be brought before our readers. However, we print his letter in toto and deal with its contents here. The .main theme of Mr Mason’s letter is that the Times has always opposed him and that he has triumphed in spite of the Times. With the policy of the Times during Mr Mason’s term of office we have nothing to say. With regard lo Mr Mason’s abilities the Times has said that he possesses all the qualifications necessary as Mayor of Pukekohe, but that he is unfortunate in choice of politics. We stick to that. Mr Mason, as a private citizen can be extreme in his views or conservative and it matters not to us. But Mr Mason, proud of his extreme Labour views and late contestant for a seat in Parliament on the same ticket as Holland, Savage and Co., is a different proposition when he puts up for the position of chief magistrate of Pukekohe. Now as to his challenge to the Times. It is already answered. We are willing to concede that Mr Mason before he attempted to scale the Parliamentary ladder by means of extremist views, was a capable Mayor. We know nothing against his administration, but we are sincere and honest in our contention that to strengthen the New Zealand Extreme Labour Party by returning Mr Mason to the position of Mayor would be against the best interests of this large agricultural district. Whatever was the previous attitude of the Times to Mr Mason’s waterworks policy or any other policy the present editorial chair does not know. The present is what we are dealing with and we maintain that we are honest when we state that it is Mr Mason’s political views alone that we object to, not as a private citizen but as a candidate for the Mayoralty. Mr Mason must know that the views he is so proud to stand by are those held by a party which is not loyal—some individuals of that party, including Mr Mason, may be loyal—but the party is not loyal. It has no time for patriotism, it places the Red F?ag before the Union Jack, it opposed conscription at a time when our boys were in a death struggle in the trenches. It is out to strangle enterprise, to breed discontent and does not look with abhorrence at red revolution itself. Anything which strengthens the hands of this party is to be nipped in the bud, if possible. And here, in conclusion, let us make this plain, to show that the present policy of the Times is not bitter towards Mr Mason as a man, but only to his views. We will do this even now. If he will renounce his precious allegiance to a party with such sinister and tyrannical leanings, if he will declare that he no longer holds with the sophistries of Socialism, if he will state clearly that he believes in and would gladly die for the good old Union Jack,i that he is for the Throne—-in short if he will state that he will contest the Mayoral seat as an Imperialist—then the Times will support him up to the hilt. He thus lm a fair chance to declare his true colours to the burgesses of this town and must leave them to judge him by his answers. Now, Mr Mason, it is up to you.

“We nothing extenuate, nor aught set down in malice.”