LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 310, 24 September 1908, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE HON. R. A. LOUCHNAN AND THE "GAG" CLAUSE. Sir,—l write to thank you for tho melancholy pleasure you havo given'me with your "tangi" over my mortal remains. At .the same tiiqe, permit me to remonstrate on the excess •of zeal which seems to have driven you' down to the lowest depths of gloom. The plunge so creditable to your senso of honour and s'o: flattering to .'my past history was, believe me, sir, hardly quite necessary.

You and I,' sir, think aliko on threo great constitutioual'pnnciples. Of these, two aro touched—with temporary and partial impact .—in the now famous. Clause 19 of the Second Ballot' Bill, _while the third (the basic principle of' majority rule) is dealt with in tho thorough: .fashion for-its permanent benefit, in the rnijin, provisions of. the measure. With ' regard !to tho tjvo first, you and I havo fplight against the proposals regarding them in tile BiTh About the {liird, .my treatment of the measuro as' a whole is decidedly ;mOro respectful -to the basic principle of majority rulo : .than yours. Don't let that distress you too much. Wo are all liable to orr. Next'time we differ our positions may b'o reversed'and you may then bo "top dog.": -Who knows? In that caso I promise beforehand not to weep too much..

One word .boforo concluding. I seem to have heard a rumour that some of us put up a fight in tho Council against Clause 19 of tho "Second Ballot" Bill. But as I have not been' ablo to find &ny traco of such a thing * in the columns of your exceedingly well-managed • journal, 1 am driven to the conclusion-that'l must have been dreaming. Pray confirm-this' or otherwise at -your earliest.—l- ami etc., R. A. LOUGHNAN. September.-23: [We aro reluctantly compelled to confirm Mr. Loughrian's fears as to his-state of somnolenc'e, though. tho' conclusion arrived at is not for . tho-reason which ho advances. Ho professes to have been unable to find!any "trace" in our columns of tho fight put up in the Council against, the notorious Clause '19. Initlio yery article ill which we referred to his' backsliding wo wrote: — ;"Throughout' the earlier debates in the Council, Mr. Loughnan vehemently 'opiwsed th'o obnoxious clause . '.' ' In tho same article weiwrote—"Mr. Rigg's motion after a "valiant defenco'of publje liberty by tho men who still'retain their independence was lost by one vote.".;>-As'to tho '.'three great-prin-ciples'.' which Mr. -Loughnan tells us guided his actions in this matter, we would direct his attention to the fact that he has overlooked the circumstanco. that tho third (tho ba-iic principlo of majority rulo) was not involved'in .'the. vote—to which we took exception—which lid gavo against the recommittal of tho' obnoxious clause—the voto which pre-, vented, the carrying out of what lie had 'previously so eloquontly and so convincingly advocated. Mr. Loughnan perhaps docs himself injustice in suggesting that ho has been 'dreaming, but-wo: fear that' tho somnolent atmosphere of tho Upper Chamber has not ,boen without effect on a usually very widcawako gentleman.] DOG DAYS. Sir, —Thero aro' certain months in tho year at Home in which the Government compels the canino race to bo muzzled. .This timo is called "Dog' Days." Tho period which our Government intends to muzzle the press and public may well bo called tho samo. A recont cablegram stated GO policemen were told' off" in New York to shoot unmuzzled dogs. Perhaps our Liberal Government intends to com filete tho analogy and employ tho same tactics during-tho "gag" period by. shooting off any- ono who loves liberty of spoech and press. —I am, otc., ANTI-AUTOCRAT, September 23,