THE EGMONT ELECTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 158, 10 December 1914, Page 3

THE EGMONT ELECTION.

To the Editor, Sir—Your sub-leader of Monday, [ think, makes my as a supporter of the Liberal party and others in this district, ask the question: "Are you and your paper supporters of the Liberals, or the Reform party, or are you not decided where von are?" as the article on the Egmont seat makes one scratch one's head and say where are we? If you are a supporter of the Liberals, well, may Mr Astlmry say, "God save me from my friends." For myself, I think the article is quite uncalled for, and will probably bias a good few electors. You say Mr Wilkinson has proved a very good member. Do you not think lie knows it, and are there not sufficient Reform papers to laud him up? How do you or anyone, else know what Mr Astbury will do if elected? His remarks from ' the platform as quite as sound and sensible as (Mr Wilkinson's. In fact, if Mr Astbury improves as much every year if returned to the House as he lias done as a platform speaker, the Egmont electors should feel they had done a very good thing in returning Mr Astbury. Your remarks put' me in mind of a tale of a new chum who went from Herefordshire to America years ago, and his boss bore the til.le of colonel.and was a good man with his hands. He says to the new chum: "Tom, can you fight the softy?" "I don't know sir, but I will try, if you like." He did, and knocked seven 'hells off tihe colonel. How do the electors know but that Mr Astbury will be quite as superior, considering that he will be attached to a great deal more 'lioneit and more capable parly? Now what has Mr Wilkinson done? You remark about theWcst Coast leases, and he certainly has done a great deal for the 1882 leaseholders by practically giving them 10 years further occupation where, I contend, they should have no consideration. There had been two occasions when for a little increase in rent in some cases the 1882 leaseholders could have had the perpetual right of renewal. Now some of them did, but those that got the concessions lately go whining that it was a slianie to take the land from them and give it back to the Maori. Where would there have been any breach in the law if every acre that these men would not pay to convert was taken from them? Had they any right or title to a further 10 years? I say no, and it was like putting lard on a fat pig's back to do it. Now what procedure did these men employ to get their work done? They called a meeting of West Coast leaseholders, particularly asking that the 1882 lessees should attend which we did, thinking we were dealing with honest men. There was a levy made firstly of 10s per section, then a levy of so much per acre, the 1852 contributing about '7s Sd of the funds. There were two persons to meet and address the leaseholders, and give their yiews. What occurred? When Mr Massey came to the. district, the membor came to the man selected and asked him to allow the other man to speak first. Of course, No. I had practically no say in the matter. He was a 1892. The second, or the one that the member selected to speak first, was a 18S2. It then got to the election of a committee to go to Eltham. Not a single 18'J2 man was on the committee. Eesult that 1892 men got nothing, because the provisions to grant the freehold to the 1892 man are so very complicated that it cannot be given effect to. ' Why, if the members wanted to do something, did they not make the Public Trustee, as he is already, the party to consent to grant the freehold ? We have a perfect right to the freehold, seeing that the -Maori will never get the land back. Now there was a certain clergyman who got more funds and worked harder than anv of the committee. Also

be was of the right color. Why did they not invite this man? He was not a Wesleyan, and not a good wliiher. Mr Maxwell is the man to whom these

1882 leaseholders are altogether beholden, much more than to the members. Did these very thankful men, when it came into their power to give a very important and lucrative position of value give it to this gentleman? Xo; they got Mr 'Wilkinson's sergeant-at-arms from lEltham to fill the bill—a man who had done nothing for them in any way, so Mr Wilkinson has got a ten years' extension for a body of men who had no right to it, and were not men enough to pay for their own work, but got the 1892 men to pay for it for them, or the greater part of it. So much for the member for Egmont's leaseholders, I think the least said either about the Opunake-Eltham railway, or the Bill passed authorising the Mo'uroaOpunake railway, the better, as' the ratepayers will want a lot of educating up to rating themselves, especially after the Waiuku revelations.— I am, etc., PAUL WILLCOX, ' Raliotu, Dee. 8. [We agree with our correspondent's remark re the base ingratitude shown te Mr Maxwell, who was largely responsible for putting the leases on the new basis. The lessees allowed him to do all the work, spending weeks and months working in their interests, but when the opportunity came to recognise his work, thev calmly passed him by, As an instance of ingratitude, it would be difficult to equal. As for our opinion regard- | ing Mr Wilkinson's candidate, the simple 1 answer is that we absolutely refuse to be blinded by party when it comes to dealing with .a man who has proved so capable, conscientious and energetic as Mr Wilkinson has done. His political convictions are of secondary importance, and we repeat that his defeat would be a loss, not only to Egmont, but to Taranaki and Xew Zealand as a whole. —Ed.]