SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1392, 1 March 1905, Page 2

SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

REPLY! TO MR LISSANT CLAYTON, [(To the Editor Gisborne Times,. Sir,.—Will you afford me space for a few remark'syto,uching the letter of Mr VL_ L. Clayton, which appeared in youn issue of Tuesday last, soliciting subscriptions on behalf of Mr .Taylor. Of the policy, in making the appeal I express, no opinion ; but his statements and arguments, engage my attention. He begins by. implying regret that the press had devoted so little attention to the issue of the Seddon-Taylor action, and then alleget that the affair is happily, settled,” Surely, this was a consummation "devoutly to be desired in the interests of the reputation of the colony,, and one that should not lightly be impeached. But the happy;- settlement was evidently the last thing he wanted,-.and he proceeds to do his' .best to destroy, "it; justifying hi a action by, the plea that our, freedom of speech and legitimate criticism are in process of curtailment., Were thia a fact a knowledge thereof: would grieve every lover of liberty,, and men of our race iii all parts of the world would deplore the. evidence of such indications of degeneracy, and we should inevitably decline in their estimation if we diii| nob excite their contempt. FurtheU it ia implied that the instruments of thia process of degradation dip the Premier, Mr Seddon, an" Government ; that is, by the ye?>T government .that was instrumentaßin extending the franchise to every,svdult of either'sex in the colony. m No'w, if evidence of the existence of the utmost liberty .of speech, and that to an extenf often incompatible with order and deoorllm,. were needed, nowhere could more/ conclusive instances be furnished thnn«tcrm Mr Taylor’s career itself, which is fraught with violent and virulent personal . attacks, and that to an extent well nigH unparalleled in this colony. To aseKme Premier personally or in coifc&Snction f with his Government contem-. pliMjd. the expediency or possibility of pro-

moiiDg saoh a policy, would be to assume that:they were escapees from some lunatio asylum. Mr Clayton refers to the Bill.of Bights, and to the.period of our history of 1689, and certainly he could not refer to any period where evidenoe in such abundance can be found in refutation of his absurd contentions. In those unhappy times any Nonconformist minister , who addressed a congregation exceeding five in □umber committed a statutory offence 1 By what method of computation Mr Clayton discovers 1689 to be 800 years I'- ego is not tome apparent. Again, he is .inconsistent. For instance, he says, “It is not.fo £ho public interest that the competence or incompetence of any official or public' man should be proved by his paßt public career.” \~But this contrasts curiously with the assertion olosely following, to wit, “It is a matter of no interest -to most of us whether Capt Seddonwas a ooward or Mr Taylor the most * scdriijdus of human beings.” According to this it is a matter of no interest to most of us, i.e.,. to the majority of New Zealanders whether Messrs SecJdon and Taylor are competent or incompetent. But no evidence need be adduced to prove that cowardice is a qualification for a competent officer, or scurrility an indispensable attribute to a ; legislator. _ But I will now conclude what I regret the .necessity for writing. But I regard Mr A’s letter as an attempt to obiaii money by false pretences, and an indirec attempt to assail the Government; ant against this proceeding I protest.—l am eto., GEO. B. JOBLIN, Nuhaka, February 20.