TO MR BALLANCE, M.H.R.

Patea Mail, 26 May 1881, Page 2

TO MR BALLANCE, M.H.R.

When Mr Ballauce addresses his constituents this evening, he may assist in forming local opinion by speaking with precision on the following points. Let him emphasise his previous expression of sympathy by assuring his constituents that he will miss no opportunity as a Member to urge the completion of the railway between Waverley and Hawera. As to helping on the completion of the M Coast line up to Wellington, Mr Ballance takes a position which seems to us absurdly local and unpatriotic. He uses his influence and advocacy to oppose that work, because he thinks a through line would feed Wellington; and he contends also (but only in Wanganui) that Wanganui is to be considered politically the equal of Wellington. Persons outside of Wanganui cannot be expected to regard Mr Bailancc as a colonial politician so long as he talks local bunkum. In addressing electors at Waverley, he should feel that be has got out ol the Wanganui valley to higher ground. His opinions may be invigorated by the breeze from the Patea district. He may realise that Wanganui is and may be a centre without being the centre. The ocean harbor of this Coast is Wellington, and the people will continue to look to Wellington as their centre of trade. If it be also their centre of political importance, why should Wanganui wince ? Facts of nature like the existence of a harbor of the first magnitude are not to be set aside in favor of a place which has some small vanity in the direction of becoming a Home port to the extent of 2 ships a year. It would be nonsense to say that Wanganuiis not an interesting and important place; but importance is relative. On the question of Redistribution of Seats Mr Ballauce has taken a position which needs explaining. He can see no good end to be served by the Government scheme of redistribution, and

prefers to see things remain as they are. Now his constituents are entitled to have an opinion on the important subject of representation. To prefer seeing things remain as they are means, in this district, that Patea County is to remain without separate representation, although its population is ascertained to be one half more than the minimum required in the Government bill. Mr Ballance’s position may be thus stated: Wanganui County has 8,109 persons, and has two members, its electoral area including also part of Patea district. The Government bill would leave Wanganui County with two members, but the town of Wanganui would not have a separate member. As to Patea, the effect would be that the County would get one separate member, while it would be entitled to the proportion of one and a half. Mr Ballance would perfer not to give Patea County either the one or the half. Our contention is, firstly, that the Government bill would go a long way towards redressing present inequalities, while Mr Ballance would prefer to see things remain as they are; and secondly that a Redistribution Bill is not to be kept back merely because its effect in one constituency would not satisfy local politicians. In Patea district it is considered preferable to lose part of our full voting power in order to get separate representation at all, rather than, as Mr Ballance would have us, remain without a separate voice in Parliament. On the question of a through railway, and on the question of political representation, we invite Mr

Ballance to reconsider his previous opinions, and place himself mere in accord with public opinion in that part of the Patea district which he represents.