THE QUEEN'S GARDENS .

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 16 February 1914, Page 6

THE QUEEN'S GARDENS .

(To the Editor.)

I read in Saturday's "Evening Mail" That the Council thoughtthfy might He-move the notices from the grass. And to me the idea seemed -.right - Hut Councillor Piper gravely said Should the resolution pass, .. That if the boards were taken away "The people would walk on the grass.

For when the dear little children playIn the Gardens of.the Queen, They love to cross the smooth-cut lawns So beautiful and green; But see ! our worthy Councillor Declines to let then:- pass. "You naughtv children, come away, "Don't break the fragile grass."

Xo doubt in the natural cowse 1 of events We shall all be taken.away,. And most of us will, I trust, ascend To a land that's always day ; And I wonder if, as we'enter in, -\nd the golden gates we pass, We shall hear St. Peter sternly say, "Will vou please ' "KEEP OFF THE GRASS?

WH VT IS MR. ATMORE'S POLITI- * CAL PROGRAMME TO-DAY ? -

(To the Editor.)

<sir —The member for Nelson, in his opening remarks on Thursday evening", was evidently greatly perturbed at having nrovided'subject matter for criticism b-\T two cnonvraous writers, to whom he had not replied, as he "preferred to personally meet the people." In any case, to do* so is only his duty and privilege. I have some recollection of a vast- number of anonvmous letters appearing in the' local papers at the last election in support cf Mc Atmore's candidature, and tli«jiara* r inir other candidates; but I ha\e no recollection of any protest then as to the unfairness of such criticism by Mr Atmore. ar.J it may be further stated that with but one exception- all of Mr. Atmore's supporters who write concernin" him are all anonymous. The activities of the Nelson Reform League were reviewed by him in anything but- complimentary* terms. The possession of motor cars and money by some of its members seemed to constitute their chief offence- and the fact that none of them availed" themselves of the offered 15 minutes to state a case the Massev Government, was, according to Air Atmore, an indication they had «ot got one, and that he spent the greater j portion oi three hours in knocking out -\[ r \y. F'. Marsey and his political outfit indicates that we may have had a further two hours'' entertainment, and a fine exhibition of footwork, had any Reformer been so venturesome as to have taken the fifteen minutes. Mr Atmore on this occasion of meeting the people, was also enthusiastic in his admiration - Sir Joseph Ward, and emphasised the -ii.tement that Sir Joseph was a straight man, in support of which he quoted the opinion of Mr Isitt. whose political views on the land question are identical with those whom Mr Atmore classifies as amiable lunatics, and it is not likely that any such testimonial from Mr Atmme is necessary to Sir Joseph in this electorate. We were also told that the Massev Party, who, according to Mr. Atmore at election time, had sterling men in their ranks, were guilty of lies ind j.-isrepresentation in regard to Sir josfefih Ward and the Liberal Party. By th 6 wstv. is this the same or another Sir Joseph* who Mr Atmore talked about- at the last election, and the one who en ; deavoured to extract written pledges from candidates, and the same Sir Joseph who emphatically denied the accusation, and which denial wps not nccepted bv Mr Atmore? And in the matter of "misrepresentation one is inclined to flsk if certain other election statements oi Mr Atmore have not also been emphaticHlU' denied by Messrs G. Macmahon and T. Field? Subsequent to these episodes, Mr AtmorP told, us from the balcony of thu Masonic Hotel

of an interview lie had with Mr Masscv re the wording of the no-confidence motion, and 1 understand that Mr Massey (who he also told us would never be Premier of New Zealand) denies the accuracy of Mr Atmore's statements concerning this interview. So we have it that Sir Joseph Ward, ex-Prime Minister, the ex-chairman of the .Nelson Harbour Board, and a candidate tor Nelson, the ex-Mayor of Nelson, and the presentPrime Minister, have all had the temerity within a very short period °f time to question the accuracy of statements made by Mr Atmpre. In these circumstances " the particular shade of black that distinguishes the pot <>r kettle is a matter of moment. I hold no brief for anonymous writers or the Reform Party, but would point out that finding fault with others is Mr Atmore s strong point, and it is sometimes a p.'od way of covering up one's own deficiencies. The destructive role is easier '<> take than the constructive. Mr Atmore has told ns more than once that the land question is the most important of ad questions, and that the tenure doesn't matter; it is just as easy to get tl:e revenue by way of tax as by way oi rent. As we get 4 per cent, on the capital value as rent from Crown lands, are we to understand that he is - favourable to an imposition of a 4 per cent, land tax, and if not, why not? "as it is just as easy." ' Mr Atmore was emphatic on the desirableness of breaking up the big estates in Hawke's Bay. He instanced the case of one man holding 22.000 acresHe spoke <>f its value, and that the value was made by the people and by public expenditure. He said all such values were public gifts, and should be taxed. I think the people of Nelson have been told this by others, though it is as well that Mr Atmore should not- be' so busy empha'sising it, although he is known to be a strong opponent of rating on unimproved values in Ncijon. or was a verv short time ago. .He did not tell hi? audience that during the last 20 years or so the public indebtedness had increased bv forty millions, and the increase in the unimproved value of land was one hundred and forty millions, of which latter amount one hundred and twentysix millions were public gifts to private individuals. and that while the State borrowed and spent £4O, somebod v had received a public gift from the State of-£126; but he talked of a pro perty tax for defence purposes. This svstem of-taxation was repealed by the Liberal Party in 1891, and is therefor-, against Liberal principles, and in view of Mr Atmore's association with the Land Values League in \\ ellington it is remarkable that "he did not make _ a sounder proposition. Due regard ior your space prevents a,further review of Mr Atmore's speech in this issuei

1 am, etc., W. J. MOFFATT