RE SANDON TRAM EXTENSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1077, 18 March 1913, Page 3

RE SANDON TRAM EXTENSION.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—As ray attitude legardijig the Sandon tram extension has apparently been misunderstood in same quarters, I shall be obliged if you will publish the resolution moved by me at the recent meeting of delegates held in Palmerston. This shows my fellings as far as the tram is concerned, and I have frequently stated that I am strongly in favour of any movement in connection with the improvement of the port of Foxton, I regard Foxton as the natural outlet for the whole of the Rangitikei and Mauawatu districts. The resolution is as follows: “That this meeting of delegates convened for the purpose of discussing the question of Sandon tramway extension does not offer any objection to the Manawatu County Council extending their tram line to Greatford, Feilding, or in any other direction, and to obtaining connection with the Government line, provided that this extension is for the bona fide object of giving better facilities for disposing of produce and carriage of goods required for the district. But there is a very strong objection against any proposal which involves the Government taking over or subsidising the Sandon tram line, or to the Government taking any steps whatever that would lead eventually to a Eevin-Greatford railway line. This latter proposal has been so freely and so strongly advocated in Levin, Foxton and Rangitikei, and statements made that the tramway connection at Greatford is only preliminary to the larger scheme, that this meeting considers it is necessary at this stage of the proceedings to place on record its most emphatic protest and strong objection to auy movement which would eventually result in Palmerston North, Feilding, Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa being cut off from direct access to the Main Trunk line. This meeting has every sympathy with any proposals for the improvement of the port of Foxton.”—l am, etc., M. A. Eiaott. Palmerston N., 15/3/13-

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —With your indulgence I will again reply to “Worker (?)”. I said that Mr Holland never said that Evans never had a revolver. That I will stand by, as will also those who had sense enough to listen in a proper manner. He asks me could I say with a clear conscience that I was never out of hearing of Holland’s voice. I was within hearing of his voice the whole time he was speaking, but not during the whole time that Parry was speaking. As to the question whether I could name any newspaper which printed the statement that the bullet had been produced verifies my argument against his “facts,” that question I asked him, hut it met its “scissors,” therefore its for you to answer. As to the petition, lis it not significant that of a population of over six thousand only 894 signed that petition. Did they constitute those who were engaged in the strike on either side? Not much, they were his class of “Workers?” or shirkers. I give any man credit for his opinions, who is not afraid to give them openly, but coming from out of the dark, well, if you are ashamed to do so, don’t ridicule those who are not, which is the stamp of workers to which I belong —that is the genuine sort. Then as he states that the hearing was accorded by a handful of people, which forms a subject for him to ridicule, what about his minority that signed a petition from Waihi? Again, I have hurt his feelings in referring to his refuge under a nom-de-plume. My reason for writing over my own name is because I have nothing to be ashamed of, and the man who will speak openly and give bis opinions openly is more to be relied on than those who are afraid to do so. Mr “Worker ?” says I want to appear as a “big gun” before the eyes of the public, that statement can go for what its worth. But, js it not better to be a “big gun” in, your comrades cause, than a poor harmless fizzer, who only splutters occasionally. Then he says I told deliberate falsehoods and have no conscience, I believe I have one in my make-up. also, there is nothing on it to make me ashamed of my name. He has solid grounds for his statements, then the ground is not large enough to hold him up. I had occasion to visit this year, and the misfortune to stop at a place were also stayed a number ot “workers,” into whose conversation I got, and when I began to ask questions concerning their part in the strike, they closed up, they were ashamed of their actions. Thus, having been on the spot, seen and heard and having the full records of the whole trouble from start to finish, I will combat any and every false and misleading statement which “Mr Worker (?)” or anybody else makes, either through the press, with your permission, or on the street corner. In conclusion, take my advice if you have a principle do not be ashamed of it, but as bis reply shows that he has not, then do not attack those who have with lies and bitter invective. Take off the mask and then I will enlighten him with the solid truth which he has shown such a dislike for, and don’t forget we are uniting as workers. In conclusion, I am prepared to supply him with the correct record of the strike from start to finish, if be is man enough to ask lor it. Thanking you, Mr Editor, for so much space in your valuable columns.—l am, etc., E. G, Martin.