DOWN WITH THE RAG! TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9906, 27 November 1893, Page 3

DOWN WITH THE RAG! TO THE EDITOR.

: Sir,—Scobie Mackenzie's red rag " Pomahaka," which floated so gaily from the land monopolists' pole, has been sadly torn by Mr John Douglas; and those who were simple enough, if there are any, to think that Scobie Mackenzie, who was never a success in land matters in his life, could know more about Pomahaka, which he has never seen, than Mr Adams, Mr Dallas, and 301 settlers and people who lived in the district, must have j had their eyes opened. At one of Scobie's meetings lately he referred to John's statement that T. Mackenzie presented the petition, and he laughed at the idea of John's making that an argument that Tom believed in the purchase, and went on to say that a member had to present "any petition," &c. A little while afterwards he insinuated that the petition had been drafted by an interested person, and signed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry to please this person. Now, Sir, I know Mr Thomas Mackenzie, and I have no hesitation in saying, that he would never be a party to any such proceeding, even if it cost him his seat. His action re the tellers, and other actions, place him on a far higher plane than that on which his namesake—and some say rival—wishes to place him. Let Scobie make no mistake. He has overreached himself; because there is nothing clearer to anyone who looks under the surface and analyses the > little he can find in those darky minstrel displays than this, that either Scobie Mackenzie is wilfuUy, and for a purpose, trying to injure his opponent by unfair and baseless charges, or else Messrs John Douglas Percy Smith, C. W. Adams W. J. Dallas, Thomas Mackenzie, and the Hon. John M'Kenzie are guilty of a serious charge, because from Thomas Mackenzie, as member for the district, should havo come the denunciation of this job, if job it is, ana his silence on the matter leaves him "in the swim," and proves that he, like a gentleman of Scobie's acquaintance and a partisan of his own, thinks that Scobie was a fool to touch the (adjective) question. Scobie really wants to do what he was forced in Waihemo to do—oust the first practical working farmer who ever held the portfolio of Lands, and thus for a time prevent the prosecution of land settlement; but we young New Zealanders won t have it. " We love the land that bore us, We see that land before us, And by the heavens o'er us - We'll make that land our own." And in order to do so, not only we but our wives, our sweethearts who are to be our wives when we get those homes, our mothers who have reared us, and our fathers who toiled for us, educated us, and brought us to manhood, will, on the 28th of November 1893. record our votes for honest, burly John, tho champion of land settlement.— I aiu, <Sc, November 25. A You.no New Zealander.

— Germs of contagious diseases are capable of multiplying themselves with marvellous rapidity. A single germ, when placed in surrounding's favourable to its growth, quickly divides into two. Each of these then divides itself again, and so on, the number very soon reaching iuto thousands, lt has been estimated that by the end of 24 hours one single germ will have multiplied itself into more than 13,500,000 germs,

THE POMAHAKA PURCHASE: MR JOHI DOUGLAS COMMITS HIMSELF. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Mr Johu Douglas in his long letter 01 this eagerly watched subject has utterly anc r finally delivered himself up into the hands of M: . Scobie Mackenzie. Nothing that any friend o: Mr Scobie Mackenzie's could have written wil have the weight iv absolutely vindicating hii comments upon thia notorious purchase anc fixing the public mind once for all upon th< subject thau this letter, or rather confession, of c bitter and exasperated enemy will possess. Not ! only, however, has Mr Douglas proved to the hilt the fearless chargo of Mr Scobie Mackenzie that he (Blr Douglas) the owner of the property that has just passed into the public hands at so notable a figure was the real author of the petition of the so-called "settlers," which the Minister of Lands attempted to make so much of; not only doea Mr Douglas, by evading this direct charge, confirm it intoacertainty.andgivetoMrScohie Mackenzie's statements at Palmerston and Eweburn the final stamp of proof; not only does he, by shirking the direct challenge given by Mr Scobie Mackenzie to meet him f-ice to face before the people of Palmerston and answer the proofs now in Mr Scobie Mackenzie's hands, confirm and admit before tho . Mr Mackenzie's confident assertion that he dare not face thosa proofs and hope to stand for a moment before them; not only is this the case (for this concerns perhaps principally Mr Douglas himself and his reputation)—but in the case of the whole fabric of defence to Mr Scobie Mackenzie's accusations the Minister for Lands' own and only defence is brought in ruins to the ground. For what was that defence ? It was that the purchase took place because a petition was presented " from 300 Clutha settlers " praying that this very estate, described iv language such as would induce the belief that it must be situated in the vsry heart bf the Elysian fields, should be taken over by the Government at the public cost. The Minister has absolutely nothing else to say. He calls his opponent "the biggest liar in New Zealand." By Mr Douglas's letter it is finally made clear to the public now that a public challenge to uphold before the face of the people the good faith of the petition has been prudently evaded, and Mr Scobie Mackenzie left entirely vindicated. What does Mr John Douglas say about the petition upon which the Minister for Lands rested his entire case at Palmerston? We quote Mr Douglas's own plea, uttered helplessly amidst a considerable amount of personal aouse: " The petition had veiy little to do with the purchase." While omitting to answer any statement Mr Scobie Mackenzie had made, the Minister for Lands produced, with an air of triumph, which the event now shows to have been a poor sham indeed, the petition of the 300 Clutha settlers, and he said, "This, ladies and gentlemen, this is my justification, and upon this I rest my defence of the Pomahaka purchase." And now that that petition has been traced with practical certainty to its real origin — now that that origin, first denied but now admitted as clearly as admission could be made—poor unfortunate Mr John M'Kenzie, abandoned by Mr Douglas himself, is in this matter in a plight indeed, and will need all the generosity which Mr Scobie Mackenzie has extended to him if he ia ever to recover himself at all. I find one or two other things in Mr Douglas'sletter most notable. I will De strictly just to him, and now state that he asserts, the present rent to be 9d per acre instead of fid, as his opponent said. But Mr Douglas cannot deny, for it is now perfectly wellknown here in town'that it is only recently that the rent was raised from 6d to 9d per acre, and that even at that figure the lessee was about to throw it up. Neither can he deny that Id per acre is a very strange rent (practically indeed just as strange as the original 6d) for a property containing all the marvellous' qualities of the -Pomahaka estate as described in the petition, and for which 50s per acre is the price defended. But surely this is a minor point. Mr Douglas has stated under his own hand—and I certainly could hardly have believed such a thing if it had been said of him by anyone else, even by Mr Scobie Mackenzie himself—that he actuaUyhadthealniostincredible audacity to demand from the people of New Zealand that sum of 70s per aero for a property which was valued for land tax purposes at 458. I really do not know how to characterise this extraordinary confession, which admits more than Mr Scobie Mackenzie ever alleged. I do not know how to classify a mind like that of Mr John Douglas, who, by way of defending his own probity and honesty of purpose, puts before the world under his own hand a statement like that. No wonder need any more be felt that Mr Douglas declines Mr Scobie Mackenzie's challenge. Mr Douglas moreover actuaUy takes credit to himself for hesitating "for some weeks" to accept 50s per acre. Isit any wonder that a man who, under such circumstances, could bring himself to ask 70s should be some little time in reconciling himself to the fact that he could only get 50s? That the petition was- drawn up in the way Mr Mackenzie says, and was hawked round the district by-paid canvassers, are serious charges, but Mr Mackenzie has left himself to the electors of. his district to make them good. Mr Douglas, seeing that himself and the Minister can no longer stand together bn the latter's defence, seeks to save himself by declaring that the Minister's tremendous trump card had after all " very little to de with the purchase." It is all very well to say this now the truth about the petition is out, but Mr'Douglasjhas forgotten that it leaves the Minister absolutely defenceless. Mr John M'Kenzie has, however, his remedy; let him in turn throw over his companion in this unpleasant business, avow and reiterate that the petition, so far from having "very little to do with the purchase," was the controlling element in the whole concern, and tell the public straight and true what he knows about how it was got up. Let him explain what he knows about Mr John. Douglas's most curious excuse for shirking the challenge to meet Mr Mackenzie's charges on the public platform—namely, as it would not give him time to get his defence circulated before the election. What has Mr John Douglas to do with the election ? He is not standing against Mr Scobie Mackenzie for. a seat in Parliament. He has no election disadvantages to suffer fiom exposure, before the election any more than after it. Mr Douglas tells us in his letter that "there was more than one hand" engaged in "scrolling!' the .notorious petition. "Scrolling"—that is, ruling three lines ahd printing the heading. It is a curious and ingenious expression. Was there more than one hand engaged upon Mr Douglas's letter ? Also, let the Minister tell the public himself the origin of the paragraph about the election. Meanwhile, until these two gentlemen settle their differences, let the public own that it owes much to Mr Scobie Mackenzie's courage in exposing what has evidently been nothing less than an elaborate and barefaced imposition upon the people.—l am, &c, November 25. Elector.