THE ELECTIONS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 86, 7 October 1870, Page 3

THE ELECTIONS.

(To ih« Editor of the Moth*! Ida Chrojucmo.) Sir,—Your office, during the last week or two- seems to have been besieged with letters seeking insertion in your columns on the subject of the coming elections. It is gratifying to see so much interest taken in a* matter of so much importance to the district, and we are fortunate people in having your* paper through which to make known our views. These letters are all temperate, and,.'as...far a** I can judge, truthful,; with the; exception of one which appeared in your last week's issue, signed " Anti-Aristocrat." This writer evidently thinks that the best way of obtaining some post of honor, which he seems ardently to wish for, is by setting class against class—by "sowing the seeds of discord " broadcast in the district, .j Does he for a moment expect the miners to : believe this part of his "No man can "fairly, honestly, and independently represent two interests so completely conflicting as are mining and squatting ?" The meaniug of this must be, mining'and' squatting are different things, therefore they must be conflicting. To show the fallacy of.this argument, let us draw a ppallel and drinking are different thiugs, consequently they must be conflicting. Now, everybody knows that eating aud drinking are necessary to the life of every human being, but not more so than is mining and squatting to the prosperity of this district. These two interests are our principal ones, and the success of the one depends,, far more than a casual ohserver would be led to think, upon the success of the other.

For instance, the miner depends on the squatter tor a plentiful supply of good beef and mutton, and the squatter in his derives nearly half his profits directly and indirectly from the miner, and yet i( Anti-Aristocrat" would have us believe thai; no two interests can be more.conflicting, whereas 1 none are less so in the country. !_ But since, "AntirAristocrat" considers that;.certain occupations disqualifies a man, can he not tell us at once the occupation!* out of which to choase.

But do you think, Mr. Editor, that a man's calling has anything to do in the matter? Are not >ll lawful callings honorable, and are our representatives not.to be' chosen on their merits, regardless of what their occupation may be? Certainly. . In a. district so extensive, properlvqualified, steady, independent men will surely come forward. ; To send a poor man to Parliament is to make him still poorer. The private, affairs of a parliamentary man should be? so as not to harass him.—l am, &c., i •.Fur Play.