CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 21 October 1890, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

FEED PIRANI IN KE^'LY

We are not responsible for the statements

or opinions of correspondents.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SIANAWATO HERALD. Sin,— As you have devoted two leaders to an attempt to demolish ray political ad Areas, I trust you will not grudge me space for a somewhat lengthy reply. You remind me of the very grave blunder I committed in not replying to some questions suggested in your paper as to the Jnionist programme, and you aay I " refused to reply to them." That is untrue, as I was never asked them at a public meeting. lam not a Unionist, the manii festo you referred to was issued three weeks after I had promulgated my political platform, and the best answer aa to whether I adopt that platform, is that I have no intention of departing from the lines I first laid down. To oblige you I will give my impression of the reason for the adoption of clause E, prohibiting the importation of foreign labor under contract. On July 12, 1887, th« following resolution was carried at a meeting of sheep-farmers at Amuri, Canterbury : — " That a deputation interview the agent of the Tyser Line to ascertain what it will cost to brbg Kaffir shearers from South Africa, as it is understood that good shearers are paid there at the rate of 6/per 100 sheep." You appear to have entirely misunderstood my proposals, and by starting from false premises based ridiculous asiump- , tions on them. If you turn to. your report of my first meeting you will see I proposed to tax the unimproved value of land, not, as you assume, unimproved land— a very different thing. The elaborate calculations you made as to what the tax will yield amount to nothing when it is remembered that both the late Property-tax Commissioner and Mr James G. Wilson state the unimproved value of land held by private holders in the colony at seventyfive million pounds. I pointed out very clearly in my reply to questions that one per cent would be found to be rather above than below the tax required to raise the necessary revenue, as under the estimate given alone a margin is left of £145,000, derived from an income-tax, totalisator, abolition of defences, &c. One-half per cent would probably be found to be sufficient.. In pointing out how the land-tax would bear heavily on the farmers you wi fully conceal the fact that I propose to exempt the necessaries of life from Customs Duties, which would save from £10 to £14 a year to every farmer with a family, a very important consideration. You first accused me of wishing to represent the "labourers "only, and when I prove from your own report how unfounded such an accusation is, you resort to abuse, and say I want to represent the whole colony. You call me a "strong protectionist," because Mr Wilson implies it, but I have never laid claim to the honor. I did not say I would or would not support Mr Ballance. In reply to Mr Russell's question I said I was going in to support measures not men, and I would not be a party to factious opposition, unless something different occurred in the state of parties in the House — claiming the right to support principles before party. You unfairly quote my concluding remarks in your leader, which were: — 11 Unles* sametlriny is done to settle the labor difficult!/ and the monopoly of the land, there will be a social revolution before many years have passed." The italicised portion you left out. I am surprised that you should descend to misreporting, misrepresenting and abusing a political opponent. Fair play is bonny play all the world over, and it is a good thing those who read your paper will not believe anything you say to be fair and straightforward after such a transparent attempt to throw dust in the eyes of a political opponent.— l am &c, JTrkd Pirani.