The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1892.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4034, 10 February 1892, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1892.

Mr Hogs, M.H.R., lias displayed a degree of stupidity over the Eketaliuna co-operative contracts which takes us quite by surprise. Some time ago we published a statement wbioli seems to have created a feeling of alarm and dismay in the Minis terial camp. Week after week, and almost month after month have passed by without any refutation appearing m the columns of his journal, beyond a mild suggestion that we had been misled. At last, however, a contradiction of a somewhat singular oharaoter reaches us. We received from the member for Masterton a document purporting to be signed by thirty-five men employed upon the works, denouncing our statements as " malicious falsehoods," Now, it bo happens that we were supplied with the information which we published by friends and supporters of Mr A. W. Hogg, and if malicious falsehoods have been told we have the very best authority' for them Now,' if we assume that a trustworthy follower of the member for ilasterton—say someone he had recommended as a fit and proper person to be made a Justice of the Peace-was responsible for these malicious falsehoods, is it not an exceedingly stupid thing for the member for Masterton to get thirty-five men to sign a document proclaiming his best friend a liar, parading his mendacity in the columns of his own journal, and tji.en forwarding the proof in to ub for'further publicity? It must be a comfort to the member for Masterton to know that there is a little hanky-panky about the docuroont in question, The; proud possessor of a blue ink pencil sejjqis to have written in it a number of names <U hbtityn- Possibly Mr Hogg may have noticed thi.B pgonlin arity in. the signatures attached to it,' but he may have thought that they, would look genuine enough in print. The btst thing he can do now is to discredit the document, as he cannot very well afford to accuse his own immediate friends of malioioua falsehoods, more especially as they have jßxprp.sped their willingness to pr.oduc&. jp support of th.e allegations, th,ey fiayp Wp would like yery much to know % history of tli() renwlsablo document which was sent to us. either by pr through MrHogg,M,H,R. Whocoin: posed it ? Who supplied the names 1 Where were they written ? But we fear we are shut out from all information of tjjie jfipd, 'The thing oame to lis from,Mr Hogg, /toil we are unlikely to get any reliable infor? mation from this source, Be says the Conservative papers of the colony ought to re-publish the thing,.but this ipdownright impudence. ..For all we fojoy. t,o fj^goptrary,'the, whole of the of It it is evident ihg,t a numbefpf signatures aro not wltat t|iev should be. The only journal in tlif) cplenj' i which ought to publish a paper of' this kind is the one in which it has jfllfl sl / a PP eare^