MR TWOMEY IN REPLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2301, 5 January 1892, Page 2

MR TWOMEY IN REPLY.

TO TEE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —For the past few weeks I have suffered from what is termed “ the prevailing epidemic,” and during that time you have taken advantage of my helplessness to embellish your leading columns with rrty name. Knowing how limited your repertory of subjects is, and sympathising with your struggles to provide pabulum for your articles, I should not have objected to the use you are making of my name to add interest to your paper, only for the fact that in last Saturday’s issue I have been so badly treated that I feel the insult must be wiped out in ink.

Now Sir., I can see plainly how that article came to be written. You went home to keep up Christmas in the grand old style, and left the junior devil in occupation of the chair, and hence the article. Well, Sir, I hope you had a good time of it, but when you recovered consciousneas, and discovered what the mischievous little imp had been doing, I am inclined to think the pleasures of your festivities were somewhat marred. But lam not angry; drivelling idiotcy cannot make any one angry. I merely wish to drop a tear of sympathy with you in your weakness. No doubt the temptation on Christmas night was great, and, alas! editorial flesh is often weak. And ~ow for the life of me I cannot

see any connection between the change in the incidence of taxation in 1891 and my appearance in a Court of Justice in 1887. That case originated in a little harmless

banter at the expense of Mr J. Ivess, and when I appeared in Court I found that the lawyer I had engaged had neglected his duties. I was consequently un- M defended, but the case was dismissed, y and I had only to pay the costs of the

other side. When nothing worse than this can be thrown in my face Ido not think I need blush. E very one remembers the illustrious Dr Fangioss, and how proud he- felt, when his university conferred on Ir'm the degree of A.S.S If the person who unear.hed this live year’s old story had been educated at the

same university I am c< rtain he would have the degree of A.S.S. conferred on him in recognition of his industry and acumen. But did not the Christchurch Press recently publish an abject apology for having libelled a country publican ? If so, does it become it to rake up this story about me 'I With the exception of the last occasion on which he spoke, I have never asked

or prompted any one else to ask one single question of Mr Rhodes at any of his meetings during all the years that ho has represented this district. On one occasion when he was attacked by a Timaru paper I defended him to the best of nry ability ; i have always given full and accurate reports of his speeches; and several of his friends thanked me for the fairness with which I treated him during the last election. If Mr Rhodes’ manly i instincts had been properly developed he would confirm all this, and point out the ’y wrong done to me by accusing me of having disturbed his meetings. But the • people of Temuka know that the accusation is false, so it can only hurt Mr Rhodes himself. But evidently some of Mr Rhodes’ friends think he ought to be regarded as the monkey is regarded in Benares —so sacred that he must be allowed to play what pranks he pleases and that no one must dare to comment upon his actions. Very well, then, let them label him “ sacred,” and then, of course, all will respect such an aweinspiring object. Until this is done his constituents will doubtless exercise the right to criticise his actions, even at tho risk of arousing the toothless rage of the / Christchurch Press. / And now, what has led to all this 1 m Simply that Mr Rhodes wanted to prove that capital was leaving the country, but as the tax on money has not been increased, he found it difficult to show cause why it should leave. He therefore TQsorted to the strategy of selecting ou,

single clause of the Act and of shutting his eyes to all the others, and on this he built up a fabric as baseless as the imagination on which he drew to construct it. His spoken utterances on this head were somewhat hazy, and I merely asked him to make the matter more clear. This is the only question I have ever asked Mr Rhodes, and as I was not satisfied with his answer, I applied to the Premier for an explanation. I little thought my desire for accurate information would have brought me into such' prominence. With regard to the clause on which Mr Rhodes has built his argument, I need not quote it. You have already done so ad nauseum; but you have taken good care to ignore the fact that the Land and Income Tax Act literal! / bristles with provisions for preventing duplicate taxation. Not only this, but sub-section 5 of clause 10 actually provides that should any kind of property be doubly taxed, the Commissioner must refund the sum wrongfully collected. Thus, not only is double taxation severely guarded against, but it is provided that money erroneously collected in that way must be refunded. This is the law, whatever money-lending lawyers may say to the contrary.

Comparisons are certainly odious as regards the heathen Chinee and Mr Rhodes. I need not say what was the guiding principle of the Mongolian prototype you have been, so stupid as to provide for Mr Rhodes. I shall leave you to finish up the comparison you so elegantly began. In your own cardsharping phraseology you have said Mr Rhodes had the “right bower up his sleeve” in this wonderful document of the Northern Investment Company. If so, he played it very badly. While flourishing this triumphantly in the air, he says “it will be found the Commissioner is wrong,” and he continues, “ the only doubt I have on the subject is as to which of them the Commissioner or Mr Ballance is the most ignorant as to the operation and effect of the Act.” Good gracious ! could anything be more pathetic than this ? “ There,” he says, “is proof of my assertion, but the Commissioner who supplied it is wrong and ignorant.” In the name of common sense, if the Commissioner is wrong and ignorant what is the use of relying on this document 1 Has not Mr Rhodes completely ruined it ? If the Commissioner is wrong in any particular, no reliance can be put on anything he may say, and this wonderful document is, therefore, only useful as a bogie to frighten old women with. I notice this

is the use you are making of it. You are acting on the principle that “ one fool makes many.” You don’t mind posing as a fool for a season, in the hope that by doing so you will be able to fool others. Fool away. The past has frequently proved by the result of elections that the number you can mislead is small, though perhaps select. A bird which disregards cleanly habits! in its nest is always associated with things unsavoury. I

cannot help comparing you to such a bird. You are trying to create a panic and to destroy public confidence, in the hope that by that means your party will regain power. Every country has un- * fortunately produced traitors ; and, alas ! I suppose New Zealand cannot expect to prove an exception to so universal a rule. As for my poor self you can only resort to the mean device of trying to belittle me. I know, and everyone knows, that I am poor and humble and little already, so all you can possibly do in that respect cannot hurt me. It is fortunate for me that there is not a great deal to be said against me, or no doubt the person who raked up a five years’ old Court case would have unearthed worse if it had

existed. I am sorry you descended so low, but it is an old saying that “ If tow was woven through golden gears, In spite of all the art of man the roughness still appears.” —I am, &c., J. M. Twomey. [We deeply regret to learn that Mr Twomey has been a victim to the influenza. We are, however, pleased to think that he has so far recovered his vigour as to be able to pen the above letter, which certainly does not appear to be the production of an invalid. We -, agree with Mr Twomey that he has no ff" occasion to blush because of his appear- ■ ance in Court five years ago. We only mentioned it as an interesting incident in his history as a public character. As regards the public question involved in our controversy with Mr Twomey, we should add that we only introduced Mr Twomey’s name to our readers because he was the “ humble ” instrument who enabled us to show up the disingenuousness of the Premier. Our point was that whatever might be the correct interpretation of the working of the Act the intention and desire of the Government as repeatadly declared in Parliament, notwithstanding the protests of Mr Rhodes and others, was to tax twice foreign capital in the shape of money borrowed on debentures in England by mortgage companies doing business here. This was made still more clear by the Commissioner’s letter, published by Mr Rhodes, which, as he pointed out, contained the grotesque error of claiming to tax such capital thrice. Subsection 5 of clause 10 of the Act, which our • friend, Mr Twomey, still clings to so fondly, has nothing to do with the question. The result of Mr Rhodes’ exposure of

the stupidity of this part of the Governx ment policy has been to excite such a A universal protest on the part of the * organs of public opinion in the colony 1 that we shall not be surprised if Mr Reliance is forced by his own party soon to retrace his steps and amend this part of his Act. If so, that large portion of the public who unfortunately have to borrow money and do not like to pay R higher rate of interest than they can avoid, will have some reason to be grateful to Mr Rhodes, and also to what Mr Twomey calls “ the toothless rage of The Press.” —Ed. Press.