THE RANGTTIKEI ELECTION.

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 151, 18 June 1892, Page 2

THE RANGTTIKEI ELECTION.

TO THE EDITOU OF THE STAH. Sir, — The farmers of the Kangitikei are, so to speak, placed on the hortis of a dilemma, as each of the candidates ■ both Liboral and Leyellor claim to haye their dearest interests at heart. I speak of Mr Bruce as a Liberal, because it is rauk nonsense to refer to him as a Tory, or an upholder of monopoly. His utterances and past services prove that there is nothing he desires more than to sco every colonist possessed of a piece of land provided that he has energy and brains enough to work for it. Besides, Mr Bruce is an out-and-out freetrader, which alone should be sufficient to stamp him as a Liberal of the first water. Farmers of the Kaugitikei, let us return a freetrader to represent us. The Government are preparing to increase the import duties on articles which are of absolute necessity to the progressive settler. Let us return a representative who will oppose legislation inimical to the farmers, and one who will not be likely to hunger after the Government loaves and fishes. Protection is a bane to the farmer, injurious to the labourer, and a thing of joy to the monopolist. The Government are favourable to a protection policy. Mr Stevens will suppoit*the Government, so let us take care. Consider the position of tho farmers in America where under the baleful system of protection the right to live at all is almost denied them. I alluded to .\1 r Stevens as a Leveller and what true colonist will dare to contradict me in view of the monstrous statement that he made in tho Assembly Rooms on Wednesday evening, viz., that every swagger, he considered, should have equal voice iv the government of the country as they whose labour, energy, and intelligence have made New Zealand what she is. I maiutaiu that such an assertion is an insult lo the intelligence of Ilangitikei. At any rate I can tell Mr Stevens that it " winna gang down " with tho farmers. Bird^ of passage may unfortunately have got the vote, but their right to it is another matter, lie the question of taxation mentioned on the farm of 250 acres. It may be quite true that the Property Tax extracted from the farmer £6 lfa's 8d while tho Land Tax lots him off with £1 2s 2d. But let us consider the question of a farmer who has a farm under the same conditions, except the haying of a mortgage of £600 on the property. If when the term of his mortgage expires he cannot stump up, he has to borrow at a rate of interest one per cent higher than he might have obtaiood under the old much abuaad days of the Property Tax. Now the conditions are reversed, instead of paying £6 16s Sd directly under the Property Tax he will indirectly pay £7 2s 2d. Mr Stevens shuffled considerably over the Enabling Bill. Surely he must have known that it is to enable the Governmeut to allow the formation of associations without granting thirds for the purpose of road construction. Mr Stevens is a Government man, and doubtless before he gives an answer on a matter of this kind he must consult his masters. We want independent minded men to represent us, and we have such a man in Mr Bruce. I am, etc., Joseph G. Browne.