THE HONORABLE MEMBER FOR ASHBURTON.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2162, 19 August 1907, Page 1

THE HONORABLE MEMBER FOR ASHBURTON.

[To the Editor.] Sir, In this morning’s issuo of the Times Mr. Palk questions tho truth of my statement, which was that Mr. McLachlan was a staunch prohibitionist, and that he owed his election to tho prohibition vote. In one word, Mr. Palk wants vour readers to believe that, under the guise and title of “A Christian,” I am deceiving your readers. We shall see. Does Mr. Palk deny my statement that Mr. McLachlan, tho thrice elected representative of Ashburton is a prohibitionist? Does he deny my statement that tho honourable member made prohibition one of tho planks of his platform? Does lie deny my statement, in the House, Mr. McLachlan is recognised and de a pended on as one of the praliamentary prohibition party? If your correspondent denies tlieso, my deliberately made statements, then I cross swords with him and call upon him to disprove my assertions.

But Mr. Palk says that it was not the prohibition vote that elected Mr. McLachlan. Does not the prohibition party command a tliree-fifths majority in Ashburton? And, that being the case, is not the representative thus elected by the prohibition party? . The statement' that the member was the choice of Mr. Seddon is a bit too delicious. Again I guestion of you, Mr. Palk. as you are officially informed: Did not the prohibition party for years before the death of Mr. Seddon, openly defy and hold 'up to ; ridicqlo the actions .and policy of the late premier? I ask is this not the case; Mr. Palk? For the Ministers, of the gospel I have the highest respect when I find them laboring in their Master’s vine▼ard , but when they neglect that

sacred pursuit to mtorfero in the Government of the State, I feel, sorry for the state and I expect to find the vineyard somewhat neglected. Air. Palk concludes his remarks with the following sentence which is typical of his party:—“Your correspondent’s attack upon the Ministers of the gospel is worthy of notice, only in so far as it emphasises the fact that in order to defend the liquor traffic it is necessary to traduce those who represent the best and most sacred in our community.” AA’hy does he say that- I mil “defending the liquor traffic?” I am simply opposing ’'imbibition because 1 am satisfied with our present form of government and have no desire to see our liberties taken from us, even by those who,-without any-auth-ority, human or divine, stylo .themselves as the representatives of the most sacred in the community. AA’hat right has Air. Palk to judge others? I am not interested in any way in the liquor trade. I ani a sober man who lias been an abstainor probably longer than any member of the prohibition party in this town, but, on principle I object to, prohibition for many reasons, and I modestly-claim the right to my opinion in a British colonv not yet handed over band and loot to clerical rule. Do you, Air. Palk, deny me this right, or do you approve of Aliss Alurcutt’s action in stigriiatising as “a dog” a fellow townsman who had the temerity to differ, from her when she lauded the Jap and attacked the Britisher?—l am, etc., “A CHRISTIAN.” August 16th.