CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Star, Issue 14527, 1 December 1910, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

Bvtry Utter must Be accompanied by the name and address of . the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Rejected Utters cannot be returned under any circumstances whatever. THE DRAINAGE WaRD AND THEIR DELEGATION. ZO THE EDITOE. Sir,—Every patriotic citizen must agree with your expressed hope that the last has been heard of the regrettable, dispute between the Harbor and Drainage Boards. When one coneiders tho potentialities for Otago in the Harbor Board j Vesting Bill it "is remarkable that any | local body in Dunedin would dream of imperilling its passage into law. Tho leading incidents of the last few weeks in this connection may well bo closed. While that is the wise, there is so much misrepresentation of myself and my recent speech in tho Legislative Council on delegations to Wellington that I desire to sav something about the report of the Drainage Board delegation. Tho report, of the delegation (Messrs T. R. Christie. : James J. Marlow, and James Small) was presented to tho last meeting ot die, Drainage Board. The delegation Tefer to | " the extraordinary charges and assertions , that woto made by the Hon. J. l\ Pan 1 in j the Legislative Council last week. Iho; gentlemen who composed tho delegation have chosen to Toad something into my re- i marks that was not there. No excuse- can ! be mado for this, for the reason that you j publkhod my speech very fully. My I complaint was that many un necessary delegations came to Wellington as representatives of public bodies; that such ! delegations did absolutely, no good; gave no value for the money expended; that some delegations had mado charges for expends which did not como under tho heading- of "ordinaryexpenditure." _ Lvery j member of Parliament knows this k true; < every pressman who h:is done duty in the Press Gallery knows that tho charges are true. I- Ktid tho Drainago Booid delcgation was unnecessary. The Hon. Mr Mil- I iar, tho Hon. Mr Sinclair, and yourecL j held the same opinion. Tho delegation i utc pleased to convey tho impression that I impugned the honorable character of those who composed it. No such intputatkni can bo found in my remarks. Thev even report that I said 'Hkey did not 'pay their own expenses." I said nothing of the sort, for I did not know .1 am not in the habit of speaking of what I do not know. Nothing coedd be further : from my mind than any idea of personal dishonestv in anv member of the delegation. Sav the delegation : " We repudiate | the insinuation that we, as delegates aTe i capable of charging items in the billot expenses that ought not to be charged. If the delegation infer that 1 hinted at the. insinuation they have more imagination than is usually associated with three well-known business men. I resent tho personal reflection on myself in the following paragraph :"" . . . j the necessity for a personal presentation of j the Drainage Board's case was brought j forciblv home to us when we discovered > how difficult it was io mako Mr Paul understand the elementary facts of the question on which he talked so .dogmatically." That is unfair and incorrect. # ft is a reference to a private convers.ition, and I propose to tell your readers what happened. I met the delegation only once. Almost an hour after the Bill had parsed all stages in tho Legislative Council, and after" I had spoken on it. a- note was handed to me in the Council that tho tliToe gentlemen who composed the delegation wkhod to see mc in the Strangers Room. After greetings, tho delegation asked when t'-e Vesting. Bill would j come on. I told them it was through all j stages three-quarters of an hour ago. " Then we can go home," said one of the three. 1 replied that I did not know what they came for. Then for not more than three minutes wn discussed the alteration made in the Bill—the substitution of "may" for '•shall." At least one of the delegation yvas emphatic in asserting thai, the- Haibor Board were in their hinds and tin l Drainage Board held the whip hand. I said that it was not an edifying spectacle to see local bodies fighting", amongst themselves, when thev should bo fighting for the legitimate interests of the City and .Province: | and I wound up v. lib 'he safe prindierv ' that the future would | jove the truth or otherwise of the assertion of the delegate. I had tlten to hurry back to the Council Chamber, a? 1 was' interested in another measure.' What wariaiit there is tor tho assertion that 1 could not- c-un|'reheiid "the elementary facts oi the question" em well be left to'your readers io inrVr when the conversation did not last move than threo minutes. The legal effect of the alteration remains to be seen. Several legal authorities and competent parliamentarians agree that such is the case. But tho delegation ale cocksure. They read their own wish in tin' ilau.se; it is not >o .long since they could oidy sec what they considered their own rights. That tlu-ic wero other interests to b:> adjusted appar- : ently never occurred to them. But we ; have agreed that incident- should lie closed. Perhaps the last wouls of the delegation aro most amazing. We road that tho delegation did not attempt to oppose the Har- ; bor Board Vesting liiil—" Had we done ; so, it would not- now Iks law.' - ' The <\Af- \ gation did not even attend the meeting of the Local Bill.-. Committee, who considered the Bill the morning they arrived, though the meeting was specially called to hear them. Nobody knew where the delegation wero, though tho Committee iiad put off j consideration of the Bill from the previous j day to hear the delegation. It will Iw | news to tho Hon. Mr Millar (who had charge of the Bill), to the Local Bills . Committee, and to Parliament that the j Harbor Board Vesting Bill is now law j because tho Drainago Bo.vrd delegation to Wellington did not oppose it. With all due respect to tho delegation, they have an exaggerated idea of their influence. In anything 1 havo said concerning tins delegation extravagance 1 havo not oven ; hinted at the personal integrity of any member of the Drainago Board delegation. While the personal honesty of the members of the delegation k above question., the judgment ot' those who composed it is at least open to criticism. We aro all public men, and as such must expect to have our work criticised. Tho remarks I made were in the public interest, and I desire, to i thank vou, sir, for your testimony to tlw truth of my indictment, and the justification and opportune time for making it. I havo no end in view but the legitimate advancement of our City and Province and it docs not help our work in Wellington as members of Parliament to find that local bodies aro in open antagonism. —i am, etc., •'. T. Paul. Wellington, November 28. THE GREAT "MODERATE" PARTY. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l find that tho paragraph from me, as published some days ago, has been misconstrued, so must ask lor space to make mv meaning plain. Your reporter gave it to me as a commonlyexpressed opinion that we had sacrificed a groat deal in giving up the " Iteduction" voto, as a very large number would be deprived of this middle course. —these were complaining, etc., etc. Mv answer to this was, as quoted, that '•there is no groat moderate party, which takes a middle course; its existonco is a myth—a bogey used to flighten us," etc., and backed up mv assertion, which evidently astonished yonr reporter, by saying that the voting proved it, as oilly some 5,000 persons out of a total of 414,292 adopted the middle course of "Reduction only," which he had assumed to be so popular. Tho figures plainly justify mo in saying that, as regards voting, the great moderate party arc practically non-existent —it k only about one-seventieth part of the yvhole. When it comes to the voting point—and it was that we were discussing—tho moderate party practically disappear, for nearly all seem to decide for or against No-license. On the other hand, somo 64,000 people who voted No-liconse refused to voto for Reduction, and threw away their votes. If all who voted " No-license " would also havo voted " Reduction" wo should havo carried "Reduction" in about fifty electorates in IMS. In Dunedin City in, 1908juOut of aQ,633 valid ygto;>

only 273 persons voted for "Reduction ouly," while 1,458 persons who voted for No-license refused to vote for Reduction. Of course I am well aware that thore is always a large number of persons in cottrso of conversion at any given time. This is inevitable in every growing movement such as ours, and we respect their honest doubts. I was myself in this state of mind for about three years, before finally adopting tho policy of No-liconse. There are also the constitutional wobblers and sitters on tho fonqe. These, like tho poor, aro always with us. Wo should bo foolish in tho extreme, however, to guide our policy by tho vacillating opinions of theso people. Wo , havo a goal, and are pressing steadily j towards it. That goal is National Prohibition. Local Option is tho principal moans to that end. There is no difference between tho opinions of Mr A. S. Adams and myself on this pointmerely a difference in tho way it was stated. Until such time as tho peoplo arc sufficiently educated on tho foolishness, wastefulness, and invariably abominable results of drinking to vote tho whole thing out, lock, stock, and barrel, Local Option must obviously remain our chief weapon. Equally obvious is tho fact that, when once the people do cast the necessary majority for Dominion Prohibition,' Ijocal Option is superseded. As I stated to your reporter, "our object is not to merely destroy publichouse licenses. Our object is to save men and women and mako tho nation moro prosperous, happy, and contented. Wo believe this can best be done by Dominion Prohibition; but in caco, as is probably most likely, 60 per cent. or the peoplo do not at tho iirst poll vote for total Prohibition, wo ask every voter to vote for local No-license also. Everyone lias tho right to voto on both papers. Even if it were certain that Dominion Prohibition would be carried in 1911 it would still bo wortii wliilo for even' voter to vote for local Nolicense also. ' Tho advantage of doing this would arise from tho fact that under local No-licenso Dunedin would get rid of its bars, the shoutiug system, the casual drinking, the hotel loafers, most of tho audible bad language in the streets, two-thirds of its crime, and, in short, a great deal moro than half of the drink evil, in sever, months after the poll, instead of having to wait four years for that happy consummation, as would be tho case if only Dominion Prohibition were carried and tiie local Nolicense napcr neglected.—l .am, etc., G. B. Nicnou.s.