THE TWO CANDIDATES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1545, 3 July 1885, Page 2

THE TWO CANDIDATES.

To the Editor. Sir,—“Fair Play’s” letter is so confused that it is difficult to make head or tail of It. Moreover, as “Fair Play” admits that he does not know whether Mr Ivetas did or did not advocate a burst-ing-up tax when seeking the suffrages of the Wakanui electors on the first occasion, one can’t help wondering at “ Fair Play’s" presumption in asserting that “Mr Ivesa fulfilled his former pledges in a very satisfactory way." before making «noh an assertion he should satisfy himself what pledges were given. “ Fair Play ” meanders among all sorts of topics, but carefully avoids touching the real question at issue. He kindly reminds me “ that the opinion ‘ that large landed estates are bad for any country in which they exist ’ is held by a great many sane people at ibe present time " Doubtless it is : and lam one of those who hold that opinion ; but what has that g it to do with my accusation that Mr Ivesa failed to carry out his election pledges t Why, Sir, every Wakanui elector who was residing in the district at the time, vlu . adm t, if he speak the truth, that Mr Ivies vigorously advoca’ed a bursting-up tux, sad made is the principal plank of his election platform Mr Wason, who woa one of the opposing candidates, perambulated the district declaring th't M|

Ivess was advocatirg pure tom mu sm and actually published a pamphle' to demonstrate the fact That Mr Ivess entirety failed to carry otr h's elecMon pledges on this important subject was so palpable, that when he addressed the •lectors in the Town Ball after his return from Wellington, one of his f-nner supporters boldly charged Mr Ivess with having betrayed those who voted for him cn this matter, and Mr Ivess had practically no answer to make, save that his accuser bad a personal grievance against him, which may or may not have been true, but was no reply to the charge. It Is not at all in point to say that Mr Iveta has changed his views. The ques- * tlon is, Was Mr Ivess pledged to support A# bursting-up tax, and did he male any % attempt to carry out that programme 1 Mr Ivess, by the way, does not profess to say that be has changed his views on this topic; but he did, some twelve mouths uo. publicly *nd audaciously declare that he had never a buisiing-cp ftaXe If it be the case, as “Fair Play’ affirms, that “ no sane man * would denounce the large landowners, it necessarily follows that Mr Ivess must have been non compos mentis du ing his hrst election contest, because it is perfectly certain that Mr Ivess did denounce and in cnuiistaaeable terms, as rair Piey ’’ would have heard if be had been a resident in the district at the time. My firm conviction, however, is that Mr Ives# vsa in his usual state of mental vigour, but In advocaf.ni- a burs'ina up tax and denouncing the large landowners he whs - simply humbugging the more ignorant portion of the electors, and having thereby secured hie elec'ion .to the House, he quietly let fall the firebrands he had been blandishing, and purposely subsided into the moat inoffensive of members in the hope thereby of conciliating those whom he had bat a short time previously been holding up to public app* obrinm. .11 I do say. without hesitation, tnat, looking at the manner in wb.ch Mr Iveea has posed as the p2or mail’s friend as the guardian angel of the laboring classes—the determined foe of land monopoly JB present alliance with sundry large wßdowners is of a highly suspicion.* character. ‘‘No man can serve two masters. "—I am, etc , WArxwrri.