CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1657, 23 June 1887, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

♦ NATIVE LEASES. To the Editor of the Star. Sir, — Leaseholder, in his letter published in Monday's Star, says : — " Mix. Heslop, in trying to defend Major Atkinson, has clearly shown that our member could not be trusted with the advocacy of the projected relief ot tenants, hence Messrs. Sutherland and Hes'op had to be sent to Wellington to do duty for leaseholders." As to the first part re trying to defend, I can only sny that if I have not been more successful in defending the Major from Leaseholder's mistatements, tbaa Leaseholder lms been in his own defence in his answer to my letter, then it must be denounced an utter failure. I will ask your readers if they will kindly read Leaseholder's letter in the Star of the 13th inst., and my answer iv the lb'lh., and I will leave it to them to judge whether I have succeeded in disproving the statements made by him or not. Iv fact, iv his letter in Monday's Star, he does not attempt to defend bis statements. Then he goes on to show, in his own way, that the reason Mr. Sutherland and I were sent to Wellington was that our member could net be trusted. Now, if Leaseholder is a bona fide leaseholder under the West Coast Settlement Act, and taking the interest in tbe matter that every leaseholder ought to do, he would be better up in the subject than he appears to be. If the leaseholders had not every confidence in Major Atkinson, they would not have asked us to place the petition in his hands as soon as we arrived in Wellington. The reasou we were sent to Wellington was to give evidence or any information that might be wanted. If Leaseholder had a case before the Court aud placed it in his solicitor's hands, would it be a want of confidence in that solicitor if he attended himself to give evidence in proof of his case. If Leaseholder is in doubt en this point, he may possibly get au opinion from his lawyer without the usual tee. Then Leaseholder goes on to say that as far as his statement re friends of Major Atkinson in the Upper House throwing out the bill, that I do not say one word. Surely leaseholder could uo' have understood my meaning in my last letter when I said " that I was sorry to think that any leaseholder, for electioneering purposes, should cast such unjust imaginative doubts on our member's sincerity." But Leaseholder has failed in proving his case, and falls back on the absurd idea of trying to make the Major responsible for his friends' actions. Now, Mr. Editor, if Leaseholder wishes to have any more correspondence with me, I hope he will be good enough to sign his name, so that the public may know whether he is a bona fide leaseholder under the West Coast Settlement Act or not, or I must decline to hold any further correspondence with him. — I am, &c, John Heslop. To the Editor of the Star. SIR, — I notice tbat I made a slip of tbe pen in my letter which appeared in your issue of yesterday. Instead of " Tuesday morning " tbe letter Bhould read Monday morning. — I am, &c, L. E. Prichad.