MR ROCHE'S RESIGNATION.

Waikato Times, Volume XIII, Issue 1121, 30 August 1879, Page 2

MR ROCHE'S RESIGNATION.

Sir, — Rumours have been floating about for the last two or three days, that Mr Roche had retired m favour of Mr Cunningham. Those electors here who promised, to support him do not understand it, and are very sore upon the subject. If it prove true, Mr Roche need never trouble himself to come before this constituency again, as he distinctly stated at his meeting that he would go to the poll. Electors are not to be bandied about at the pleasure of a certain gentleman at Te Awamutu, even if the candidates are. I should have thought that one puppet would have been enough at a time ; but there ! no one has yet credited the gentleman alluded to for half the skill he seems to possess m this particular line. — Elector, x'Jgaruawahia, August 29th, 1879. [It will be seen, by his advertisement, that Mr Roche pledges himself to go to the poll.— Ed-. W. T.]

Sir, — I cannot see that the course of tho Central and To '■ wamutu Committee m asking Mr Roche to retire was a wise one, considering as a great many of this part of the district think that his chance of being returned is far better than Mr Cunningham's. We do not forget his career m the Provincial ■ Council, which the whole of Waipa ought to feel proud of, and if Mr Roche withdraws he is not the man I take him for. If he should want to stand again any time, it will be thrown up at him he would not go the ballot box when he had the best chance of all the candidates. — I am, &c, Hamilton.

Sir, — On looking over this morning's Times, I was much surprised to see the very misleading report of my meeting at Hamilton. In that report, I have words put into my mouth which I did not use, and must wholly disclaim. In answer to question No 2, you make me say that I should vote against the Government if they introduced the dual vote into the Education Bill. • W"hat I did say was, that J should vote againet such a clause being introduced iato the Bill, when that measure came before the House. Again, m answer to question No. 7, your report states that I said my principles and Mr Whyte' s were the same. This statement was not made by me, but by Mr Kennedy Hill, who asked me the question, as far as I recollect, m these words. He said : " I heard Mr Whyte last night, and having heard you to-night, your principles appear to be identical, and you stated that you were a ! personal friend of Mr Whyte' s, then why did you come forward to oppose him, he being the first m the field ? " I replied that Mr Hill had snrely paid very little attention to my speech, for if he had done so, he would have remembered that, m my opening remarks, I said I had came forward at the urgent request of numerous personal and political friends. What Mr Whyte's opinions are, I do not know. I havo not yot read the I'eport of his speech. And to make me state that my principles and Mr Whyte's are identical, is eminently misleading and inappropriate i am of opinion that your reporter should have given the questions, and. my replies to them, m extenso, and m that case there would have been no occasion for this letter, i woidd rather be left entirely un-reported, than reported m the fashion I have been at Hamilton. — I am, ■ See., J. Palmer Campbell, Hamilton, August 28th, 1879. [Mr Campbell, at the meeting did not deny that his views and those of Mr Whyte were identical, and therefore the form m which question and answer were, for the sake of brevity, conjoined by our reporter did him no injustice. The question ( \q 2) was not put as Mr Campbell would have our readers believe, namely, would he simply vote against the dual vote — but "If the Govern ment introduced the Dual Vote into an Electoral Bill would he vote against it." We cannot theref oree see that he has been misreported even ia that case, as, if he voted agaiust the Dual Vote he would be voting against the Government which pressed for^a division on it. — Ed. W. T.]