THE DIRECT VETO.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10106, 3 August 1893, Page 2

THE DIRECT VETO.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—la to-day’s issue of your paper your correspondent, “ Another Faddist,” clearly proves one thing—that is, chat the title he writes over ia nor. a misnomer; ho certainly proves his right to it or its synonym—monomaniac. Ho says: “ I have given my reasons for supposing how the direct veto would militate against my own personal or class interests j” bub he “ fails to see how that would affect the number of men Employed in agriculture.” Doss he mean to say that yon can introduce a measure that will militate against tho personal aud class interests of tho email farmers wi hout affecting tho number of men employed in agriculture ? I am afraid it is brains, not arguments, “Another Faddist ” should be asked to be supplied with. Were this not so ho would notice that I asked him in my last to look up the prices of some other cereal or root crop which must of necessity take the place of barley. Ha would find tha supply of those products is so great that the price they command now results only in partial ruin to a good many small farmers. This ruin would become absolute wore the supply increased as suggested by “ Another Faddist.” Tour correspondent acknowledges his ignorance of the term "natural rights.” Well, were he in the land,of tho “smallpotatoes” he referred me to the other day, I am afraid he would be known under tbe appellation of “ natural.”—l am, &c..

SMALL PARMER. [We cannot find room for the extracts forwarded by our correspondent.— Ed, L.T.]