ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1294, 31 May 1880, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

$0 THE EDITOR OF THE O AM ABC MAIL. Sib, —May I ask you to be so kind as to correct a statement which, through some misunderstanding, appeared in your Saturday's issue to the effect that all claims to vote sent to me up to to-day would entitle the claimants to vote at the approaching election. This was very far from what I endeavored to convey to the member of your staff to whom I spoke on the subject on Saturday. All I asked him to state that no claims sent in after to-day would be in time to be placed on the supplementary list, if one were printed, about which I was still uncertain.

Until I come to place the names on the roll I cannot possibly state that all the claimants will have a right to be entered on it, and none but those will be entitled to vote,

I am, &c., W. G. FiLLEUii, Registrar of Electors, Oamaru, 31st May, 1880.

THE ELECTION. TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL.

Sir, —Mr*. Reid thinks I have done him a great injustice with regard to what he said in answer to Mr. Sutherland's question re the honorariura a and he goes on to | say that while he does not_ object to the honorarium when it is paid to men who are worthy and honest representatives, he still maintains, with all due respect to the poorer candidate, that if two candidates are in the field, equally honest and competent, the constituency will have a much better chance of being well served by the man of independent means, than by him who depends on his honorarium for a living. The concluding portion of this subtly woven opinion contains the pith of the whole matter :—He continues, "For while human nature continues as it is, the former (all things being equal) will have more influence than the latter." The meaning of ail this ig, ]sr. Editor, that Mr. John Reid of Elderslie believes himself to be an honest and competent, man ; he is possessed of a large freehold estate in the oountyof Waitaki,he is, moreover, a man of independent means and quite above the necessities of the honorarium, he knows human nature has a leaning to men of large estate, and if elected to the House he feels certain that when he speaks or votes he will command its respect ("all things being equal") on account of his wealth. Mr, Reid is much too good a man for the House of Commoiis, his wealth entitles him to a seat among the Lords, where his wisdom, talents, and independence would be appreciated and the country benefited. The Lower House is the forum, where the representatives of poor men—the working classes—are sent, and I may tell Mr. Reid for his information that wealth has not the weight in Parliament he fondly imagines. It is consistency of principle and practice that possess the ear of the House and the vote of the country. " Woe betide the country to whose councils" men of wealth are sent, because of their influence, for it is owing to this cause that the Colony is committed to a debt scandalous in the extreme, and to measures as unjust as those which led to the independence of the United States. In the present contest there is not a candidate in the field dependent solely on the honorarium, although Mr. Reid has insinuated, in tlie greatness of his anxiety to sit cheek by jowl with his friends Messrs. Whitaker, Oliver, and Atkinson, that " the popular candidate" is in that position,—l am, <fec., Eleotop. TO THE EDITOR, OF THE OAMARU MAIL. Sir, —I perceive in your issue of Saturday an advertisement., "Wanted, a good general servant —Scotch or English " the reference is to the National Bank. This is a new method of saying "No Irish need apply." Mr. Editor, could' you inform me whether that advertisement comes from the Bank Manager, or whether it means that no Irishmen need do business with that Bauk 1 and whether these were instructions issued by the Board of Directors of the National Bank ? I would like to get this information as I am an Irishman and there are several of my countrymen deal with that Bank.—Yours, Inquirer. Oamaru, May 29, 188.0. MR. REID CHALLENGED. TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL. Sir, —Mr. John Reid was good enough to say the other night, in reply to his retiring friend, Mr. Duncan Sutherland, that he would vote for the total abolition of the honorarium —that a man whose private means did not render him independent of the honorarium had no right to sit in the House —that poor men placed themselves in a false position, whicK is an insinuation that they are open to bribery and corruption—and that, were the honorarium abolished, the House would be composed of a' better class of men. Now, sir, as a working man and as an old colonist, who has for years watched the career of the New Zealand Parliament, I desire to say a few words in reply to Mr. Reid's unwarrantable assumptions. It seems strange that a man who claims to be the friend of all men should, so early in the election contest, have dropped his mask and displayed his true face. " We ? the moneyed class, have the sole right to govern the country. You, the poor class, may possess votes, but you shall not elect any man you like ; you must vote for the favored class to which I have the honor to belong." So, in effect, says the Elderslie liberal. It matters not that the laws of the land declare that any man possessing a vote, be he a sheep-owner or a sweep, shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. Mr, Reid and his class are prepared to devise a means of rendering that law a dead-letter. They wish to exclude all but their particular class from Parliament. They alone have the right to govern. The presence of poor men in the House is only degrading to the begloved and blackrcoated gentry, whpm fickle Fortune has especially marked as her favorites. Unless the moneyed class alone govern, how is it to be possible for them to divide thg lands of the Colony amongst themselves, or tq prevent the poor man from bettering his condition I Sir, just let us glance for a few minutes at the past history of our colonial Legislature. Let us see.what has been the result of the payment of the honorarium in years gone by. Let us consider how qiany of our most ehiinent politicians—nqen who have left behind them ?' footprints on the sands of time" that can never be effaced—could not have entered Parliament had there been no honorarium. Let us see whether or not the presence of poor men in the House has had that baneful effect that Mr. John Reid. seems to dread \yith such a holy horror. Now, Sir, turn round the political kaleidoscope and let us see what manner of men poor men have so far proved themselves in the House of Representatives in the past. The first name that comes to view is that of poor Crosbie Ward, for years,, strangely

enough, a struggling journalist, battling against a hard fate for an honest livelihood. Could he have entered the House of Representatives had there been no honorarium to cover his expenses 1 And yet, -will any man dare to breathe a word against his fair reputation? I have no hesitation in saying that never was there a man in the House of Representatives whose actions were freer from any suspicion of jobbery and corruption. The name of Crosbie Ward, the struggling journalist, will never perish. It has been emblazoned on the scroll of fame as that of a pure, disinterested, large-hearted, high-minded, and clever politician. Who comes next ? Another struggling journalist, Mr. James Edward FitzGerald, the opponent in the House and in the press of Mr. Ward ; another poor man, but yet the greatest orator the Colony ever possessed. A man who for years fought hard and well for what he deemed right; a man whose eloquence will live for ever in the memories of those who, like myself, have been privileged to listen to his soul-stirring utterances when speaking upon great questions. Will any man dare to say that Mr. FitzGerald was susceptible to a bribe because he was a poor man 1 No man dare say so. True, he at last he accepted <a Government billet, but there was nothing dishonorable in the transaction. The- offer was honorably made by Mr. Stafford to an old opponent, as being the fittest man to fill the important post, and was as honorably accepted. What name stands next on the list ? That of a man who was the very embodiment of honor and justice, Isaac Earl Featherston, one of the brightest jewels of the New Zealand Parliament. Although a poor man, he commanded the confidence of the House, as is witnessed by the fact that, when at one time he was confined to his modest dwelling through illness, the House gave special permission for his opinions "ttpon a large question under debate to be read to the House. No mean honor this for a poor man to obtain. No man dare breathe a word against the reputation of Dr. Featherston. Give another turn to the kaliedescope and let us see what other poor men, or comparatively so, have made their mark in the House, and who probably .vould never have been able to enter the House had it not been for the honorarium. In rapid succession the names pass before me of Sir William Fitzherbert, Sir Julius Vogel, Mr. J. Ballance, Mr. Vincent Pyke, Mr. J. Macandrew, Mr. W. S. Moorhouse, .and a score of other smaller lights. Could the Colony afford to lose the services'of such men as these ? Have they not repaid many fold the honorarium they have received ? And, now, in conclusion, let me ask Mr. Reid to point to a single instance in which a poor member has aocepted a bribe and sold his vote. For every such instance I will undertake to reply with a more glaring instance on ■ the part of wealthy members. For every LIOOO that has been paid as bribery money to poor men in the House maybe counted LIO,OOO loqt to the Colony through the machinations of rich men in connection with the lands and works of the Colony. I defy Mr. John Reid to deny the truth of this. Sir, Mr. Reid has shown himself a worthy follower of the present Premier, who in a notable speech made use of these words The right of the individual is to be well governed; but not to exercise political power." Mr. John Reid, like the Hon. John Hall, would rob the poor and middle classes of the privilege of having a voice in the government of the country, Will he dare to say that the possessors of wealth are also the possessors of brains ? Will he deny that very many of them are noodles, and that too often money and brains are seldom co-existent? Then why not give brains a chance ?—I am, etc., Pqqs, jiUT Honest. ♦— AN INJUSTICE.. TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL. Sir, The Inspector of Licensed Vehicles has informed us that in future we will be summoned to attend the Resident Magistrate's Court if we carry immoral women in our lioensed vehicles. I do not know if the Magistrate could inflict a fine on us for doing so, but I think the Inspector is exceedin his powers when he hints at such a thing. I have never heard of such an absurd thing in my life. It might be desirable to have some such law were it possible to unerringly judge of female character at a glance. But does the Inspector wish us to ask every female, before she gets into our vehicles, whether she is moral or not? I have looked carefully through the byelaws, and cannot see on what grounds the Inspector could get a conviction against us. In all conscience, sir, we are subjected to enough penalties at present, and if this injustice is allowed to bo perpetrated we might at once sell our horses and vehicles, and thus deprive the Corporation of a part of its revenue, and ourselves of a livelihood. Might not some suoh an arrangement as the Inspector pontemplates be made by which it would be punishable for the Railway Department to carry such a class of females.—l am, &c., A Cabman. NO IRISH NEED APPLY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL. Sir, —" Cosmopolitan" in this morning's issqe of the North Otago Times heads his letter as above, and I think unfairly endeavors to influence the Irish portion of the electors against Mr. Reid by a stupid insinuation having reference to an advertisement which he (Mr. Reid), as I am informed, has not the remotest knowledge or connection. It is a pity that men of no nationality (such as " Cosmopolitan" would have us believe he is) should attempt to create national animosty for thg purpose of making it a lever fqr electioneering purposes. His object is to me very plain, and i therefore say to my countrymen, Do not allow yourselves to be blinded or hoodwinked by "Cosmopolitan," Vote for the man of your choice without regard to creed or nationality. Any of the three candidates has quite as muoh love for Irishmen as the man who could stoop to the meanness of pretending to resent a national insult whilst his only object is to prejudice Irishmen against a particular man.—lam, &c., J. O'Meagher*