Mr Pirani Corrected.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 1 November 1890, Page 2

Mr Pirani Corrected.

The following letter appeared in last Thursday's Manawatu Times:— Sir, — My attention has this day been called to a letter from Mr Fred Pirani in a late issue of your paper, in which the writer, referring to a recent leading article in the Mahawatc Hekald, but which was afterwards reprinted for circulation, makes the assertion that I am credited with the authorship of the article. The article in question is one of a series which have appeared in the Foxton paper criticising Mr Pimm's speech at Foxton, and after the fearful «xpi>snre the writer of the articles referred to has made of Mr Pirani'd politioal opinions, I can quite understand his wish to divert attention from his discomfiture by raising side issues of a personal nature. • However, I wish to take this opportunity of stating that, with the exception of the3B Hues, I have not written one word in connection j with the present contest, and that I have had no more to do with the authorship oi the articles in question than Mr Pirani himself. I am aware that in another quarter Mr Pirani has asserted this charge against me, and hinted that I waa attacking him under cover. I therefore wish thi3 denial to be as emphatic as possible, and at the same time to express my deliberate conviction that Mr Pirani's return to Parliament would be a matter to be deplored by every right-thinking man in the electorate. As pertinent to thi3 matter of land tax v. property tax, will you please allow me to add this extract from a leading artiole in the _V. Z. 'J'hnrx of Friday last. The writer, referring to Sir Robert Stout's recent speech at Napier, points out that when Sir Robert was in office he to»k no steps to change the property-tax for a land tax, and remarks : — " In his speech of the other day Sir Robert himself tells us the reason. It is absurd, he says, to suppose that as much can be got out of the land tax as out of the present property tax without injuring country settlers. What a contrast to the unblushing empirics who make a percentage tax on unimproved values the basis of their senseless rhodomontade ! The weighty testimony of Sir Robert is doubly valuable at the present time. Let the electors insist upon the fullest proof from every would be reformer of the incidence of taxation of the productiveness and fairness of his scheme. Failing such proof, lot every would-be reformer be dismissed with contempt as an imposter, an empiric, a charlatan." Comment on the foregoing is unnecessary. Thanking you in anticipation for the favour of this reply. — lam, &c, John It. RpgsKLT.. Foxton, Oct. 25, 1890.