MR HARRIS IN REPLY.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 141, 25 June 1901, Page 3

MR HARRIS IN REPLY.

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sir, —In his reply to mo Mr Stafford bocomos both frivolous and personal, but ho is welcome to attack mo in that way if he so pleases. 1 will not deny that if ho had lot mo have his section for fifty per cent above the valuation ho complained of so much, I would have boon a “ sordid bargain-hunter,” fori could before the ink was dry have disposed of it for more than .£l5O over tho amount I offered. On the public platform the other night he referred to a section owned by MrLysnar as being assessed at tho same value as his own, and he made use of that as a fair argument. I have interviewed MrLysnar on the subject, and I now ask Mr Stafford will he accept

that section and ,£2OO besides for tho one which he had complained had boon ovorassessod. It was not my wish to single out Mr Stafford’s caso in this matter, but when men of his intelligence and standing in the community seok to thwart a great public movement for the good of tho people, and he makes uso of his own individual caso by way of argumont, I hold that it is quite fair to enquire into that spoeial case and place tho matter in a fair light beforo the householders. Now, for my friend Mr Siovwright. He says ho is afraid my calibre is not equal to perceiving his attitude. Perhaps not, but it is quito equal to perceiving that ho is skilfully trying to evade tho main issues. He poses as a seeker after truth, and with the questions ho raises I have no fault to find. But Mr Siovwright need not think so adroitly to fence on the main point, and that is that ho seconded the motion for a conference, to which tho mombors of the Haiti Board were invited —not Titirangi—and then when wo got there wo found that Mr Sievwright was an absenteo, but he did send a letter casting a wot blanket on tho movement. Our Board would not havo complained of that, because Mr Siovwright, as I before stated, might have had good roasons to account for his non-attendance, though none was given. But we had good reason to complain that when the public meeting camo on, and Mr Lysnar was by tho conference doputed to act as spokesman, Mr Siovwright was one of the first to jump up, and in the guise of a seeker for information, try to cast doubts in the minds of the people. Why was not that needed information obtained by Mr Siovwright in his official capacity ? Why did he not as3is' instead of obstruct his follow members on the Whataupoko Boad Board? “I am not opposing amalgamation,” he says, but he is trying to do more damage to it than a straight-out opponent, and it would bo better for all parties that lie, as socondcr of tho motion inviting us to tho conference which ho did not attend, should declare liimsolf in his p -per colors as an obstructionist. I loaro it to any of your readers to say whether that is not his true position, let him bo ovor so evasive. Certainly tho information is needed, but who should have bocn at Mr Lysnar’s right hand to assist in obtaining it ? Who is it that has left all the burden to that gentleman, and thon seeks to bolittle his labors ? He says that the Loan Acts aro mazy, and that the question as to harbor rates is not free from doubt. Let him say where and on what point, and not be throwing dust in the eyes of those people who were invited to tho meeting, and also through tho press. “ The electors aro entitled to have full information.” Most decidedly, and instead of posing as an obstructionist, Mr Sievwright, as a member of the Board, should have been doing his best to obtain that information for the electors. I decline to have any personal squabblo with him over tho matter; lam dealing with the mattter from a public point of view. Mr Sievwright, I must regretfully class as the Father of Doubt, and he has my sympathy.—l am, etc., Frank Harris.