MANAWA.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1747, 28 July 1884, Page 2

MANAWA.

To the Editor, Sir,—ln your issue of July 13th, "Ti Nui" makes some very damaging statements about this run. I feel sure, in fairness to both, you will allow'me a little space in your valuable paper to refute his accusation. As regards the sheep being shot down by dozens, it is the usual thing on all infected runs to destroy all sheep that will not muster. If " Ti Nui" is a sheepowner and lives in this neighborhood, it is more than likely he has done the same thing himself. In the case of Mr Stilborn, it was Mr Sutton who cancelled his certificate for a stray scabby ram which none of the settlers could account for. As regards Messrs Langdon- and Telford, tlift sheep of mine found in their yards had not been on this.run for two years previons. In both of these cases Mr Drummond was 'with me when!saw the sheep, and told me it was : the intention of the Sheep Department to "go for me" if it could be proved that I had allowed my sheep to stray. In Mr Telford's case, Mr Drummond, after having examined the sheep, informed me that it was just as likely that Mr Teliord had infected my sheep as that I had infected Mr Telford's, . As regards the other four mentioned, I emphatically deny that it was ray sheep that scabbed those runs. Every one who has read the Scab Act knows that if I had scabbed my neighbors through allowing my sheep to stray after having received a herding notice I should have been fined, and should ako have had to pay for the dipping of the flocks infected, I have not been fined, neither have I had to pay for the dipping, This in itself is sufficient to show that "Ti Nui's" statements are false. I think that if " Ti Nui" has any manly feelings about him he. will drop his nom de plume and either substantiate his accusations or apologise for his mistake. Hoping that I have not trespassed too much on your space, I am, etc., F. Taylor, Manager, Manawa. July 24th, 1884. (TO THE EDITOR,) Sir,—Mr Arthur Bunny charged me on Monday night with inconsistency in giving my vote to Mr Beetham, and concluded by saying that after all I had done to rouse public feeling against the Atkinson-Eolleston Administration, I ought to have given my voto to Mr McOardle. It may, perhaps, be an impertinence in me to think the matter of any interest to your readers, and, but for the part I have taken in discussing public questions, I should not ■ have ventured to ■trouble you. The question is simply one of the disposal of my vote: I have not personally attempted during the candidatur to influence the vote of any voter for or against either candidate, but I have strictly confined myself to persistent efforts to force upon the public mind the larger questions of colonial policy, and to secure the decision of tlje contest on those grounds to the exclusion of petty social and personal issues, It was perhaps unnecessary for me to have said how I should vote, but under a sense of indignation at the narrow lines upon which a question so vast and so pregnant with good or evil to the colony as that of s'ecitlar or denominational education was being treated from the platform, I could not keep my seat; I do not regret that I was led on to say that I should vote for Mr Beetham.. I had quite made up my mind not to vote for Mr McOardle. After reading, I believe, all his speeches as reported in the Star, apart from the very equivocal position he occupies on the question of secular education, I could find nothing to give me any assurance whatever that his presence in the House would do anything towards bringing about the formation of a Ministry or Party capable of guiding the colony at this serious crisis, or materially assisting such a Ministry when formed. I found reiterated and diffuse promises on all sorts of questions of administrative details, coupled with a oomplete ignoring of all those principles of Government which must lie at the root of and absolutely control all such details; and, at the risk of being deemed to write harshly and unkindly, I must add that he has the very serious defect of prominently displaying in more than one of his addresses a self-assertion and self-confi-dence so overwhelming and so unjustifiable by any experience of his past career, as to take away even the hope that he is ready- to learn the lessons that a man of ability and experience must learn on his entry on' the wider sphere of political life if he is to b.e of

any worth or use at all to the State, h Now what had been Mr Beetham's I position 1, He had, "with the complete I n approval of the large majority of his i{ constituents, attaohed himself to the e Hall Ministry, and, when Mr Hall p left, had followed the continuous o Ministry through its gradual decadence j( to its fall; he followed it as being the " only possible Government while the t House of Representatives consisted so a largely of the motley and incongruous o elements which the people had, under a one of those unaccountable s ments of the sound and sober sense by e which in the main run they are actu- t ated in the elections, returned to the t House. Could Mr Beetham act with 2 Sir George Grey? Could hj act with l Mr Montgomery? If not; with whom. > could he act? There was literally no s Opposition, nor any hope of the formation of one out of the then 'House. Mr Beetham, I verily believe, acted honestly according to the beat of ''his l judgment, and supported the only pos- l sible Government. Ido not say I J should have done the same, but I can- , not condemn him. The whole aspect of affairs is, however, now changed; v abler men than those who led in the ! continuous Ministry will, it is to be hoped, be in the House. Messrs ! Atkinson and Rolleston are, I trust, relegated to the Opposition benches, and, while I did not abso- ; lutely ask Mr Beetham to pledge him- i solf to a blind following of Sir Julius '. Vogel, I did, in effect, secure his public i promise that he would not attach him- : self to Messrs Atkinson and Bolleston in opposition to any Ministry which might be formed with a political platform calculated to ressue the (olony from its present disastrous condition, further than this it was impossible to go. Sir Julius, as yet, has not laid befora the colony his policy in such clear and plain terms as would justify any candidate in promising him an absolute support, and Sir Julius is, as far as it can be seen, the only man before the electorate capable of rescuing the colony, Now, if capability were always a quality certain to be exercised for good, we should none of us perhaps have hesitated in requiring either can- ! didate to pledge himself to support Sir ■ Julius, bat Sir Julius may add rash- . ness or extravagence to his capability, and we might be the first to call upon our Member to oppose him. If the . question had been like those old ones i before English constituencies, viz., i "Liberal" or "Tory," «Gladstone" or [ " Disraeli," a good Liberal or a sound i Tory would not have doubted for an [ instant, and if Mr Beetham had supi ported Mr Disraeli, or invariably sat f on ■ the Tory benches, no promises , would have induced me as a Lioeral to i vote for him, The two names implied are radically opposite political prin- • ciples; but here in New Zealand there are no such plain flags or standards, . and it is essentially an open question > at this moment, when an entirely new r leader has appeared on the scene, 1 whether any member of the House [ should join him or not. At this mo--1 ment there is no opposition but that of . Messrs Atkinson and Bolleston, who t have directly appealed to the country j on the special policy of their own ad--1 minislrative departments, and on the • general policy of the Premier, and have • been defeated. I most unhesitatingly , affirm that if Sir Julius fonns a Ministry t without Messrs Atkinson and Rolles- [ ton, as I sincerely hope he will, not j only Mr Beetham, but in my judgment 3 Mr Bryce (whose conduct of Native i affairs has been the one bright line 3 in the dusky Ministerial policy), t should give Sir Julius their frank and full support, so lopg as the measures he brings forward commend themselves to the general opinion of the colony as sound and wise. I gather from Mr Beetham's statement that he will do this. I know I can .trust his word ; I know that he has large Parliamentary 1 experience; I know that he has the i- respect and consideration of the House, !• and I feel that under the circumstances ; he, of the two candidates, is the one c more able and likely to serve well and i effectually the colony and this constiti uency at the present very serious con- , juncture. For these reasons I hold 0 that I havo been neither imprudent ) nor inconsistent in the disposal of my 1 vote, and I will go further and venture '<• to foretell that when the storm is over 3 and the excitement of the contest has f passed away many of those who voted e for Mr McCardle will learn to approve e the course I took. f I am, ifec, Robert S. Hawkins. I Bowlands, 22rd July, 1884.