THE TE ARO ELECTION.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 129, 1 December 1881, Page 3

THE TE ARO ELECTION.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE BVSNINQ POST. Sir — My friend, the " Te Aro Elector," ib *' back again." I cannot say this time that 1 am glad to Bee him, for his appearance is much less creditable than before. lam not concerned to defend the Grey Ministry; and it may be some satisfaction to him to know that Mr. Stout is gone !-'outh. The lion is ont of the path ; the jackals may howl. He regrets my "intemperate" language. I accused him of "slander," of "narrowmindedness," of " lowmindedness," and of "untruth"; and I gave special proofs of each. I regret to say that his last letter gives freßh proofs ot every one of those charge?, and of disingennousness. Let us see: Webster defines slander as "A false tale or report maliciously uttered, and tending to iDjure the reputation of another." This person accused me of being a Separationist. I challenged him to produce a single sentence of mine aa proof of the charge. "What is his answer to the challenge? — " We are aware from his speeches that he would vote in favour of Separation." Again, I challenge him to prodnco a word or sentence reported of mine tending the least to Separation, and again I say he is a slanderer. Then again he Bays :—": — " Mr. Shaw denies that he is a Separations 1 , but in private life a man is judged by the company he keeps. In political life, I maintain the same rale fol- " lows." That is to say, Mr. Stout is a Provincialist, therefore as his private friend I must be the same, although the notorious fact is that i have always been his staunch opponent on Provincialism, and by the same rule, if Mr. Stout were a Separationist (which he is not), I must also be the same, whioh I never was and am not now. This is not slander only, but stupid Blander. Again— Mr. Shaw has not the barefaoedneaa to

deny that he is the religions pupil of Mr Robert Stout." And what is the proof? Here it is— "He exhibited bis approval of Mr. Stout's view, at the Theatre Eoyal." I suppose by my presence there ; and yet he told you in his first letter that he ¦was there himse.f. Again, this is stupid slander. I am quite compet?nt to form my own religions opinions without help of Mr. Stout or anyone else, and hare always seriously differed from him in religion as I have in politics. Again, he cays, " One cannot attack the one withou 1 ; drawing anathemas from both." This is another instance of his untruthfulies?, for the plain fact is that ho attacked us both in hi 3 first letter and has not taken up the challenge of •ither. I challenged him to point out the a mlogy between Air. Barton's case and nine, and what is the answer? That he heais "my touts pleading for me on the ground of services connected with the Afcylom." Pray, again, was it not a public Service? And is not this the exact point of ! distinction from Mr. J'arton's case ? This is dißingenuousness. Then, again, ho says, '•Mr. Stout tells us that Mr. Shaw has a wide knowledge of politics, and if so, who would expect Mr. Shaw to so expose his game as to mention personally his grievance in Parliament '(" That is to say, by "politics," the noblest and widest of all liberal arts, this person means a low "game" of trickery and chicanery for private ends. This is another sample of narrowmindednegs and lowmindednes«. Then because of my "hatred" of the Ministry, and my grievances, '" I would not care for the interest of the city, &c, &o." Just let me cay this— My father and mother and two brother are buried here ; I have a valuable freehold in Thorndon electorate, and a freehold acre in South Wellington, and I live in Te Aro. I have no interest whatever in any other part of the colony ; and yet I do not oare for the best interest of the ojty, forsooth, with which my own are identical ! Truly, the desire to injure me must be intense when such silly slander as this is employed. Perhaps my senses are gone, and lam mad outright. Let me say in conclusion, I have a strong suspicion that in "Te Aro Elector," I am to recognise the author of a still more atrocious and cowardly slander, which he dare not repeat in print, and who, I have good cause to believe, meeting me daily face to face, as a titizen, has taken opportunity to stab me in the back with a poisoned dagger. I think I know him, a day or two will tell, and we shall see how he will look then. If I callad that person a scoundrel it would not bo a misnomer. I am, &c. J. H. Shaw. Wellington, 30th November, 1881.