MR FRANKLAND IN REPLY TO MR STEVENS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 441, 10 November 1908, Page 2

MR FRANKLAND IN REPLY TO MR STEVENS.

[to THE EDiTOR.J

Sir, — I regret to notice that Mr John Stevens, in his letter which you publish to-day, does not attempt to answer my arguments about the working of the Second Ballot Act, —arguments which I have in substance given on a dozen public platforms during the present campaign, and which cannot be successfully challenged. His remarks about the “ half ” and the “whole” apply accurately to the FIRST Ballot or original polling which will take place on the 17th of this month, and they embody the reasons which induced me at the former contest (when only oue polling could take place) to retire in his favour, so as to give effect to my Party loyalty. Those reasons no longer exist, because — as a child can see, and as I intimated in the newspaper advertise-, ment announcing my their validity is cancelled by the Second Ballot. The “two halves ” of the liberal vote, which Mr Stevens refers to, re-unite on the, 24th November (though they be—innocuously to the Party ou tlB occasion—“split” on the 17th ' . the month), and if Liberalism is sufficiently strong in Manawatu t< defeat Mr Newman, it will defeat him on the 24th, in the person of either Mr Stevens, Mr or myself, in spite of the fact thaw we three Liberal candidates may have (quite harmlessly this year' “split” the Party vote on the ‘ 17th. I reiterate my assurance though to all who know me t a;* assurance is unnecessary, that

have never, by word or deed, at-J tempted todispute the fact that the * Government is not on this occasion * supporting me. Also, I have not come across the slightest evidence that any over-zealous suppoiter of • mine has attempted to do such a thing. The occuireuce which Mr Steveus adduces indicates nothing at all oi the kind. The gentle man he alludes to asked the Prime Minister “ if the followers of the J Paity could plea.-e themself -

about voting eilh.r lor Mr Stev

or Mr Frankland.”

He did t'

because he himself preferred n

as a candidate to Mr Stevens, a; every elector in this constituency has a right to prefer me ifhisorhe judgment leads in that directio. And I greatly mistake the elector of Manawatu if they, as a body , deem it necessary to ask anyone’s leave before voting for the candidate of their preference ! As was said the other day by a newspaper having a large circulation in this district, it is an insult to voters to assume that their choice must be confined to “ selected ” Party candidates. This has been the band ' of the former system from which Sir Joseph Ward has delivered us by his Second Ballot Act. It is for the electors of Manawatu, not for any party leaders or Party caucus, to determine what candidate shall represent them ; and the Second Ballot Act—as I have pointed out in many speeches — gives them this freedom, which they were never able to exercise effectively before. Sir Joseph Ward, who is the author of this effective freedom, would, I am sure, be the last man to seek himself to interfere with it. And his words, as quoted by Mr Stevens, show that he does not attempt to interfere with our choice, for he only says, “I sincerely hope all our friends will support you.” While thanking Mr Stevens for his offer to reimburse me for the expense I incurred three years ago in promoting his candidature as a supporter of Mr Seddon, the late revered chief of my Party, I must entirely decline to accept one penny of reimbursement. lam' accustomed to spend my money freely in furtherance of the political principles I have at heart, and I worked for Mr Steveus in 1905 because he was at that time thfc* only effective champion in the Ma” nawatu field of those Liberal and democratic principles, which our late beloved Premier stood for. This controversy has been the source of anything but ‘‘amuse* ment”tome. On the contrary, it has caused me very deep pain.— * Yours etc.,

F. W. pRANKtAKD. Foxton, November 7th, 1908.