CORRESPONDENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2144, 29 July 1907, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE CHINESE QUESTION. To the • Editor. Sir, —I must again crave your indulgence for further space in your columns in connection with the Chinese question, tho problem having been reduced ill its logical assumptions to the “reductio ad absurdem” by my opponent. I am perforce obliged to review and accept it in its varying transitions. Permit me to quote: “Dr. Collins still appears as an edncatoi of tho stupid people of this colony.” This statement is alike as dangerous in ‘its inception, as its contradiction, inasmuch as it implies without exception a direct stupidity to the entire population of this colony, and prohibits any contradiction on my part to its author’s claim to pre-eminence in its distinction. Further: “Dr. Collins holds a brief for the Ward Government, in which most sensible people will bo of the same opinion”—a further illogical statement, in view of the previous acknowledged premises that stupidity reigns supreme. Further, I note a resemblance of relationships between the Act of Constitution and Mount Cook. Analogy in argument is inadmissable by the later school of logicians, and implies a similitude of ratios which is absolutely impracticable, and whose admission can only heighten the author's incontrovertible claims to preeminence in the enjoyed distinction lie implies to the entire colony. Then follows the orthodox democratic platitudes, viz.: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people;” “legislators wishing to act as a true reflex of the people should demand repeal of certain phases of the Constitutional law which are iniquitous, and thus remove tendencies degenerating to the race.” Herein are contained two remarkable unproven assertions, namely, that Chinese immigration is a cause of degeneracy, and- that phases of the Constitutional Act arc iniquitous. Again : “It is nonsense to talk of restrictive legislation. If colonials are true to themselves, their children, and their offspring, they will unanimously voice prohibitive legislation.” As heretofore, so at present, such a proceeding is not even contemplated by colonial representatives, hence tiie assumption, though illogical, is that my opponent implies a still more heinous trait tp the colonial character •than stupidity. Nevertheless, Sir, my argument st il remains unanswered —(1) Prohibitive legislation can only be enforced by unanimity in our bi-cameral legislature; (2) acceptance of the same by both Houses of the British Government; (3) the assent of his Majesty the King (to whom there is a prerogative of veto over the most inconsiderable ordinances of colonial legislatures); (4) under existing conditions the present Government is acting in the best interests of the people bv adopting the only measure available, namely, further restrictive legislation.—l am, etc., JAMES C. COLLINS. . Gisborne, July 27th.

MU LAURENSON’S GISBORNE SPEECH.

(To the Editor.)

Sir —Someone has been good enough to send me a copy of your issue of the loth inst containing the report of an address on the Government bind proposals by Mr. G. Laurenson, M.il.K. for Lyttelton, in which Mr. Laipenson is reported to have stated tliai at Middlemarsh, when speaking against the Land 13ill, I addressed an audience of only twelve persons, and thci/ I related the history of a meeting held in opposition to the Land U,.1 in Taranaki which consisted of omy four persons, ' including the chairman, etc. etc. I am unwilling to believe that Mr. Laurenson would knowingly make deliberate false statements on a public platform, and hence I can only conclude that some wag has been stuffing the lion, member for Lyttelton with some tall fairy tales, or that the lion, member has allowed his well-known vivid imagination to run away with him, but be the explanation what it may, I am glad that through the kindness of some unknown friend the opportunity lias been afforded me of emphatically contradicting the statements quoted above, They are absolutely falso from beginning to end. If the other portions of Mr. Laurenson’s address were as devoid of truth as these, I am not surprised that his frantic efforts to advance his lease hold fads have fa llep so flat. —I an: etc..

JAMES BUDDIE Eltham, July 16.