REPRESENTATIVES AND PROPERTY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3220, 25 October 1881, Page 2

REPRESENTATIVES AND PROPERTY.

[To the Editor of the Daily Telegbaph.] Sik,—-I am fully aware that it is contrary to selr-imposed journalistic etiquette to publish correspondence in answer to editorial opinions expressed in a rival newspaper, but as your contemporary—unlike yourself—is not at all times actuated by a spirit of fair-play, and has more than once refused to publish letters in opposition to its own views, and at other times, when it has published them, has garbled them, I have no other course open to me but your columns. With your permission, then, 1 would address a few words to my fellow electors on " Representatives and Property," which was the subject dealt with in the Herald's leading article of this day's date.

In the first place it must be allowed that the people of all countries are composed of two classes, namely, the propertied and the non-propertied, and that the latter is out and away the most numerous. These two classes represent capital and labor, employer and employed, but in no sense education and ignorance. It must be borne in mind that the possession of wealth by no means carries with it intelligence, nor does the want of capital invariably signify want of education and natural ability. But, on the other hand, the inheritor of wealth is certain to be ac educated person, and with all hie education is, as often as not, a fool. The inheritors of wealth in this colony, however, are so few that they may be left out of the argument. I will confine myself then to those who are rich, those who are making money, and to those who are said to have " no stake in the country."

Those who are rich. Who are they ? They are the least numerous of the propertied class, and it may aafely be taken for granted that they acquired their wealth by a fluke, by accident, by circum-

stances over which they had no control, by Jucky speculation, aud land jobbing. And having acquired this wealth, are they mentally superior to their fellow colonists; are they so superior to the rest of mortals that they and they only are fitted to be legislators ?

He put in hie thumb ami drew out a plum,

And SM<l, " On ! what a good boy nm I.

But Little Jack Homer was no better, no cleverer, and, perhaps, not so honest as the other little boy who only burnt his fiugers in tryiug to draw out a prize. The really wealthy in New Zealand can be almost counted on the fingers of a man's hand, and they consist of one, or, perhaps, two, merchants, and a score or so of runholders. I will not enquire into the methods of piling up riches by merchants; but a runholder's wealth is the effect of land jobbery and the market price of wool, requiring no special intelligence on his part, and no education, as may be seen from the ordinary stamp of runholders in Australia and New Zealand. Money begets money, and when a man has got a little spare capital, some one, for a consideration is pretty certain to put him ap to a good thing or two. At the same time there are many runholders well educated and intelligent men, an honor to the country, and fitted to hold any position. But, I maintain, their ability to fill any position is not due to their wealth, any more than their wealth wus due to their education and intelligence. Those who are making money. They are rising professional men, the majority of merchants, farmers, tradesmen, and, perhaps, may be included those who are saving from wages, but all who are living well within their incomes. All these compose a very large class, constantly being increased from the old country, every year being added, to from the class below them. These men are found in Parliament. They cannot afford to go there; they cannot spare the time. They ought to stick to business in order to mantain their position. When they do leave business and fly to politics they make the beet of representatives. But they gain very little for themselves. It is this class that represents the enterprise, the thrift, the backbone of the country. Not one of its members may be reckoned wealthy, but nearly all are independent, and all are aware tbat their independence depends upon their industry. It was to enable these men to go into Parliament that an honorarium wae necessary. If electors are wise it is from this class they would draw the majority of their representatives.

Those who have no stake in the country. They are the great mass of the people who are the great stake of the country, and without whom the country would be a desert. In culinary language they compose the stock pot without which no good dish could be made. Men of all calibres are to be found in this class, from the highest intelligence— fallen from higher ranks—to the lowest mental capacity ; from the man whose energy of mind must force him upwards, to the indolent soul that is incapable of self improvement. But, Sir, I would ask, have these men no stake in the country P I say that they have as large —aye, a larger—stake as the wealthiest in the land. The poor man is a fixture; the rich man develops into an absentee. On the prosperity of the country the employed depend for their food and raiment; they cannot tide over bad times, the bad times that make the mooey lender richer and the poor man poorer. The laborer's stake in the country is his life ; the stake of the rich man is his money, which he can and does draw out as soon as a better investment offers. And I maintain, Sir, that no country can be properly represented without a working man in Parliament.

I have already trespassed too far upon your space, and yet have not touched the Herald's arguments. These I must leave to another occasion.—l am, &c.,

A.Z

Napier, October 25, 1881