CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 253, 1 November 1897, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE PREMIER IN" THE KING

COUNTEY,

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The Rev. E. Walker has used your columns to complain that a letter he sent to the-" Prohibitionist" on September3oth, referring to the aboye question, was denied insertion. The facts are that, as his letter was designed to prove my inaccuracy, the sub-editor held it over for me to see. I did not reach New Zealand till October 4th, and it was not until the 22nd that I heard of the letter's existence. I immediately wrote a paragraph for the "Prohibitionist' from Wellington, promising that it should be published in an early issue. In the meantime Mr Walker had secured its publication in the Auckland Stae, the two Christchurch morning papers, the " Otago Daily Times,'-' and, probably, in others also. The sub-editor of the " Prohibitionist" thereupon very properly inserted a paragraph in this week's issue, replacing mine, and declining to publish the letter, wiring me for my approval of his action. Mr Walker can only thank himself if great reluctance is shown in the future in admitting anything he may write into the " Prohibitionist columns.

Some three months he counselled that there should be no publication of differences that arose within the Prohibitionist party, lest its enemies should exult. The persistency with which he has recently pursued a contrary policy, attacking his former comrades in the columns of the daily papers, is a source of amazement to hundreds of his best friends.

On the main question concerning which he writes he is not really attacking me, though that is his purpose. He is questioning the truthfulness of Wahanui, Hare Wanonga, and other Maoris atOtorohonga who surprised the Rev. Mr Gittos and myself by their statements as to Mr Seddon having supplied them with whisky. Does Mr Walker imply that the Rev. Mr Gittos also brought "exaggerated and reckless charges " against the Premier when he interpreted to me the things that the natives said in my presence, but in, what was to me, an unknown tongue ? Does he really suppose that these natives imagined or invented the episode ? If so, by what motive does he .suppose they were actuated. I repeat that the point at issue is, not whether I have been inaccurate, but whether the Maoris and those Europeans who confirmed their statement, or Mr Seddon has told the truth. So far Mr Walker has brought no evidence to refute the Maoris except that of a man who did not see what the Maoris assert occurred.

Mr Walker complains, without cause, as I have shown, that his letter to the " Prohibitionist" was not inserted. Have Ino ground of complaint that he took no notice of the fair offer I made to him from Sydney on Sept. 13th, and which was published in the " Prohibitionist" of October 2nd. With your permission I repeat the substance of that offer in your columns. Let him name one arbitrator, I will name another, and those two shall choose a third. I will submit to them the evidence on which I stated that Mr Seddon had supplied drink to the Maoris in prohibited areas. If I fail to prove my charges to the satisfaction of the arbitrators, I will publicly and fully apoloS'se to Mr Seddon for having made them, n the other hand, if I do prove them, Mr Walker shall publicly apologise to me for having charged me with making exaggerated and reckless charges. He ought also, in that case, to admit that the attitude my brother and I, with our colleagues, have adopted towards the ■ Premier is, not the outcome of personal enemity, but is rooted in the conviction- that political morality is of even greater importance than the cause of Prohibition. I ask Mr Walker to at once send the name of his arbitrator to the Secretary of the Ne\vZealand Alliance, and I suggest that he should name, as I will, a gentleman resident in Auckland.— 1 am, etc., Frank W. Isitt..

Wellington, October 28th, 1897.

[The original charge in the " Prohibitionist," repeated with all sorts of exaggerations and adornments from the prohibitionist platform, was that " The Premier illegally supplied the natives with whisky at Otorohanga, and promoted debauchery in other native districts." (Vide "Prohibitionist," October 2nd.) Mr J. M. Geddes, who accompanied the Premier during his tour through the King Country, in his letter to Mr Wal leer states: " I never saw Mr Seddon supplying the natives with drink. If he had done so it could hardly have escaped my observation, for I stayed at the same places as he did, attended his meetings with the natives and reported the proceedings thereat." Mr Geddes applies this statement to the meeting .vith Wahanui at Otorohanga, and adds, "We stayed only a-few hours there, and after meeting and addressing the natives in the court-house, Mr Seddon went on by rail to Te Awamutu." Mr Isitt^ great charge, out of which so much capital has been made, seems from the letter published above to have dwindled down to an assertion by Wahanui that when Mr Seddon was at Otorohanga.he gave him a drink of whisky. It seems not unlikely that, if they were dining together, this may have taken place, and if it did there was nothing either illegal or improper about it. Wahanui is a very intelligent man, of about seventy years of age, and he was quite as well able to judge for himself as Mr Isitt is to judge for him.—Ed. E.S.]

Mr J. Peckover sends another letter on the same snbject, but it is practically a repetition of the statements made in his former communication, $,nd as we have numerous letters on various public topics awaiting insertion, we must limit the space afforded to any one correspondent— Ed. E.S.