NOW AND THEN.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14237, 28 December 1911, Page 8

NOW AND THEN.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —Mr-Witty endeavours to cloud tho issue by saying that Mr Maslin's motion which he supported was not in favour of granting tho freehold to Crown tenants at the original valuation. My letter made that perfectly clear. Mr Witty supported tho motion in favour of giving the freehold to Crown tenants, and advocated selling Cheviot, so that the money released could bo used for purchasing other estates. But now, wanting to get out of his -dilemma, ho says, "This cays nothing about original value." Of course not, because this had been dealt with in a previous motion, in which the Conference adopted tho platform of tho North Island Conference, which gave tho right to Crown tenants to secure tho freehold at tho original valuation. Not only have I the full records of this Conference, but I was present, and in addition to this, as irointed out in my previous letter, Mr Witty and I starteel many branches of the union on this platform previous to tho Conference, and the records prove beyond dispute that Mr Witty persistently advocated the sale of Cheviot and other Crown lands at the original value. Further, Mr Witty says:— "Does Mr Jones forget, or does ho not wish to remember, that instead of being Mr Saunders's most bitter opponent, I ■Was one of his strongest supporters, and' was publicly thanked by him. for work done on his behalf?" No, Mr Witty, I don't remember, but 1 have made enquiries, and I am told that shortly after I left the cradle you were supporting Mr Saunders, a Liberal, but this only serves toprovo another interesting turn in Mr Witty's political career, for afterwards we find you in deadly opposition to 'Mr Saunders. At this time, when Mr Seddon was fighting for reform, graduated tax, compulsory taking of estates, etc., and Mr Saunders /stood supporting him, Mr Witty was his most bitter political enemy, and supported strongly Mr Anson, who was against graduated land tax, opposed to taking land compulsorily for closer settlement, and against the Shop Assistants Act. Mr Witty says it's hews to him that I was supporting Mr Saunders, I certainly had not a vote then, but I was advocating Mr Saunders's claims, and, being early endowed with cheek, I followed Mr Anson to several meetings, criticising and questioning .him on his old-fashioned policy. If Mr Saunders was with us to-day I would stand with him and he w_ould stand with mc in exposing and destroying the bastard Liberalism and extravagant policy ot to-day. Tho point is, Mr Witty admits supporting Mr Saunders away back. Docs he deny that he strongly opposed him and supported the Conservative candidate, Mr Anson, and afterward Mr Rolleston? Mr Witty says he "left the Farmers' Union on account of -the bias and bigotry of such men as Mr Jones, who seemed to have only ono object in view, that was to keen down the class from which Mr Jones "had eprung—the workers.* . To that statement I give an absolute and unqualified denial, and challenge Mr Witty to prove his statement. I have searched the records, and I cannot find during the time that Mr Witty~was a member that anything prejudicial to the workers was carried, and to refer to our bias and bigotry against the woxkera is at variance with the truth. I do not forget that I was once a worker, and I was one of the first men to advocate and move for the improvement of tho workers' conditions in tho country. In 1902, at a Templeton oonferonce of the Farmers' Union, Mr A. J. Bell and I moved and carried through, the following resolution:— "That this conference invite tho country workmen to meet us and discuss the whole question of land for occupation by themselves." That conference was held and wo approached the Government, urging tho necessity of the step. If the Government had agreed to tliis, land could then have been bought at reasonable prices and a great service would have been done to workers. Since that time, on tho platform and in private, I have never ceased to advocate tho necessity of landowners building cottages on tho land and encouraging their workmen when they marry to stay on the farm, instead of being forced to go into the towns or villages and become casual labourers. In referring to Mr Buddo I was only using his own words. At Kaiapoi Mr Buddo said tho Government and himself had not changed—they were only adjusted. A beautiful distinction—dot it dewn in your pocket look. M- Witty says:—"Mi Jcn>3 shows a quite unenviable predilection to change his coat on every conceivable opportunity." Mr WittY ought to listen to a few words of 'fatherly advico arid correction without getting bitter, but if it has relieved his feelings the public will value it at its proper value, or it may bo that he is colour-blind and really at this eeason of tho year we would fain try to take this charitablo view of the situation. — Yours, etc., DAVID JO NES. Beckenham.