A SUPPRESSED LETTER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1633, 13 September 1887, Page 2

A SUPPRESSED LETTER.

TO THK EDITOR. Sib,— 'Will you kindly insert the following letter in your widely circulated paper, it having been —most unfairly in my opinionrefused insertion in the columns of the Timaru Herald. The letter for the most part deals with a letter signed “ A Gladstone Elector,” which had previously appeared in the Timaru Herald, and I. simply intended to expose a most impudent and disgraceful piece of misrepresentation in as mild a manner as possible. But the Editor of the Herald with his keen sense of even-handed justice and fair play refused to insert my explanation. I trust that you will allow me the privilege the Editor of the Herald has denied, and with your permission I will have something further to say on the Gladstone election in a future issue,—l am, etc., Bate Plat. September 10th, 1887. [OOPT.] TO THE EDITOR OP THE TIMARU HERALD. "Will you allow me space in your valued paper for a few remarks on the letter signed “ A Gladstone Elector,” and also on one or two of the utterances of Mr Rhodes, one of the candidates for the Gladstone seat. Elector quotes Mr Twomey as. saying at Hilton: “Is a man never to be allowed to change his mind ? Clever men always change their mind; fools never, because they have no minds to change,” and then he goes on to say that “ Mr Twomey replied to the question at some length.” Very good. But if Elector wished, to deal with the subject why did he not have the manliness to do so in, at any rate, an honest manner ? After showing that he had been consistently supporting certain measures for several years, Mr Twomey said: “ Wise men change their minds ; fools never change their minds because they have no minds to change. I am not going to stand in the category of fools. I shall change always when I think I am wrong, but I have not yet found out that 1 was

wrong." Nothing need be written to point out the untruthfulness of tor’s quotation. To suit his purpose T he interpolates the word “ always,” and leaves out the qualifying remarks which followed. And now with regard to Mr Rhodes. I should like to ask him how it is that at Temuka he advocated that if the runs were re-let they should be submitted to auction, while at Winchester he condemned the auction system. What does he mean ? Then, how can he consistently advocate “ equality of sacrifice u principles as regards taxation in one part of his addresss and in another part condemn the Graduated Property Tax?—a tax which will tend to equality of sacrifice. No doubt persons of means have calls made upon them which are not made upon poor persons, but can there be equality of sacrifice on the part of the man who, either through wealth he may have at his; disposal or a business he may be engaged in, has an income sufficient for the needs and even comforts of his family and something to spare, and the man who, work and save as he may, cannot do more than supply his family with the barest necessities, and very often not even them? I say No. In my opinion equality of sacrifice in taxation is an impossibility, and I cannot think that Mr Rhodes is sincere in advocating it.—l am, etc., PaibPlat. September 7th, ! 1887.