MR. TRAVERS AT THORNDON.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4991, 22 March 1877, Page 3

MR. TRAVERS AT THORNDON.

Mr. Travers last evening met about thirtyfivepersons at the Eoyal Hotel. The Hon. C. J. Pharazyn was called to the chair, and introduced the candidate. Mr. Travers, after expressing a desire not to weary the electors by holding more meetings than his committee thought expedient, repeated his opinions on the subject of public works and the policy of the present Government, alluded to the necessity of simplifying and cheapening the system of local Government brought into operation by the legislation of past session, urging especially that the payment of large salaries to County Chairmen was a thing never intended by the Parliament. He dealt with the native lands question much as he had done before, and proceeded to defend the suggestion he had made as to the reduction of fees,under the Land Transfer Act, pointing out, in reply to Mr. Hutchison’s remarks re lawyers’ costs, that when in Parliament he had endeavored to reduce lawyers’ charges; hue hia proposition was negatived, although in regard to the Resident Magistrate’s Court fees he had been successful in reducing lawyers’ charges. If supported, he would move in the direction of having lawyers’ fees limited. In respect to the error in making up the ratepayers’ roll, he said he had, not gone to Mr. Hester, neither had he complained that any paper had misrepresented him; but he had told Mr. Hester, when that gentleman came to him, that he had laid to his charge only an error of judgment in not having performed the duty as required by law, but that he had blamed the Mayor more, because it was his duty before countersigning the roll to have checked the work of the Town Clerk. 1500 ratepayers had lost votes by the error, and if people here valued their privileges as highly as they did at Home, the Mayor would have so many actions against him that he would thoroughly appreciate the necessity for reduced law ' chages. After dealing with various local and civic matters, the. candidate spoke at some length on the nature of the criticism he had been subjected to. He said he had lived in the city nine or ten years, and now, because he happened to stand up in the capacity of a candidate for theiepreseutation of the city, he was subjected to the most blackguardly abuse from a few persons, especially one person, whose own private character would not be able to stand the test of investigation. He did not object to such lampooning as appeared in Punch, couched in gentlemanly language if caustic, but he did object to blackguardism, and he thought public opinion in New Zealand ought to insist upon proper respect being paid to public men. If- public men deserved to be severely commented upon, let there be such severe comment as their deserts might require j and if his private character was such that he did not deserve to be trusted as a public man, then there was no harm in his private character being shown to be such ; hut if there was nothing very glaring in a man’s career disentitling him to ask the suffrages of his fellow citizens, there was nothing to justify a newspaper with any pretensions to respectability treating a candidate as he had been treated. Newspaper writers should deal with public men just as they would wish to be dealt with were they to be placed in a similar position. This had not been done in this contest, and he was sorry for it. He had never made an unfair insinuation, or uttered a word that could possibly have been construed into personal hostility to the Mayor, until he found his opponent witnessing a person writing this species of blackguard criticism in his (the Mayor’s) interest without attempting to put a stop to it, or to discountenance it. When he found this sort of thing going on he had applied to the Mayor the proverb that “ birds of a feather flock together.” He had from the very first Sifted personalities, and he denied having been the confidant of any newspaper in town as to what was to be written, or having in any shape or way suggested a single word against his opponent. He protested against the abuse which had been heaped upon him, and speaking generally, said it would in the future be found a hard matter to induce candidates to come.-forward and leave the comforts of private life, if they were to be subjected to this sort of thing. Speaking of, the Separation question mooted in a telegram from Auckland, be said he should oppose Separation as an insane movement. In answer to Mr. Phap.Aztn,

Mr. Travers said he was opposed to any honorarium being given to members of the Assembly; but recognising that there was not a sufficiently large leisured class to conduct legislation, he would remunerate persons who left' their business for public affairs to the amount of their expenses; and if (as Mr. Pharazyn had stated) a member of a late administration brought down a motion to reduce'the honorarium to £l5O, he should vote for it, and should further propose that no person who had not to leave his business to attend Parliament should receive any honorarium.

In answer to another question, Mr. Travers said he had no connection whatever with the repudiation party in Hawke’s Bay, or the opposite party either. The usual vote of confidence was agreed to on the motion of Mr. COCKER. The meeting then broke up.