LARRIKINISM AT WINCHESTER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2465, 16 February 1893, Page 2

LARRIKINISM AT WINCHESTER.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your remarks in the footnote to my letter in your issue of yesterday are both unjust and uncalled for, as the conduct of the people of Winchester will compare more than favourably with that of the neighbouring townships for lawabiding and quietness. And, sir, I would like to know what the conduct of parents in Winchester has to do with you, unless it was that they would not support you in politics. Now sir, if you had come to Winchester as a gentleman .should, trusting to the British love of fair play, the residents would have seen that you received a fair hearing, as it was not the people of Winchester but those from other districts that were the cause of any disturbance that had been. But Ido not blame any community for not being coerced into subjection by a not over discreet following. And it shows very bad tact on your part, as editor of a paper, to vent your petty spleen when ever you can do so. —1 am, &c,

Robert Smith, Winchester, February 15th.

[This is delightfully personal. Some years ago the youth of Temuka were demoralised by a number of funny meetings until it became next to impossible to hold either meeting or entertainment. We then appealed to the clergymen and men of Temuka to put it down, and instead of abusing us they .. ;' --Hli our request. The result complied v.. _ *; <A ff w Zealand a is that there is not ... ,w ' a . quieter or a more respectable or streets more free from lamkimsm, than are to bo found in Temuka now. With this fact staring us ia the face we gave the same advice to the poopte of Winchester. Mr Smith, in his letter, told us that ladies could not move about at night without bpsng stoned or flung to the ground by wires drawn across their path, and because we gave the advice winch we think would cure the evil Mr Smjth must put it down to petty spite. No doubt Mr Smith measures us by his own bushel. We gave the best advice we could honestly, and without the slightest reference t n tho history which Mr Smith recalls, and we have no doubt that the sensible and respectable nniii t 4 Winchester will on reflection realise that we are right. We wish Mr Smith had let history alone, for- really he takes a very peculiar view of things. He thinks that because a few Temuka pooplo accompanied a certain person to Winchester on a certain occasion that was suilieioni excusp for rotten-egging that porsou. Supposing Mr Smith came to Temuka accompanied by a lew Wiu-

cheater people, would he think the presence of his friends sufficient excuse for rotten-egging him? Then another candidate went to Winchester unaccompanied by friends, and was nearly killed there. A reporter from this paper went to Winchester to report a public meeting, and when returning home he was set on near the sale yards with rotten eggs, and he had a narrow escape from serious accident though his horse bolting We appeal to the good sense of the people of Winchester to put this thing down. It is becoming very serious when ladies cannot go about at night without being molested as Mr Smith says. The men of Winchester ought to form a vigilance committee or something of that sort, and we undertake to say that if they do so their wives and daughters will be allowed to pass unmolested. But if Mr Smith is so jealous of the good repute of Winchester, why did he publish to the world that ladies cannot go about there without being illtreated ? When our reporter was illtreated there he bore it calmly and said not a word about it in the paper Mr Smith would doubtless have published it to the world had he been in his place. Which of the two, therefore, has shown the most care of the reputation of Winchester? Mr bmitn has the capacities of an excellent scold, but we suppose it is a case of " fit cap take cap." Supposing Mr Smith had the control of the columns of a newspaper, woudn't he let them have it .'—Ed.J