THE POMAHAKA PURCHASE.

Otago Witness, 14 December 1893, Page 19

THE POMAHAKA PURCHASE.

The following letters have appeared in the Dai'y Times : —

TO THE EDITOB.

Snt, — Will you allow me a little of your space to make a few remarks on the above matter, which cannot, in the public interest, be allowed to stay where it is. On November 6 Mr Scobie Mackenzie is reported to have said :: — •' Take this last Pomahaka purchase, for instance. I believe it to be a downright bad purchase — a much worse one than the Cheviot. I only know the land by repute ; but it is a cold, ungenerous soil. Ie is purchased on tae eve of a general election ; the owner of it is an influential man in this immediate neighbourhood ; he employs a number of men and may influence a number of votes ; his nephew is head of one Government department. The land has b^en for sale for many years ; I heard it myself offered for sale at the same price, I think, 10 years ago ; it has been rented a long time at 6d per acre rent, which is 5 per cent, on a capital value of 10s per acre. I believe even at that rent the land was about to be thrown up." Now, I take it that these remarks were intended to convey, and did convey to those who read them, this — viz , that the Minister for Lands had corruptly and wickedly used his authority to buy the influence of Mr John Douglas at tbe election just past, and that he (the Minister) had given at least £2 per acre more for the Pomahaka land than it was worth for the purpose of buying Mr Douglas's influence. This was the meaning I found in the remarks, and I know that many others found the same meaning in them. If they did not mean this, I still fail to understand what they did mean. I and many others thought that Mr Scobie Mackenzie had unearthed a job. Two days after, however, I saw that Mr Douglas had courteously but firmly challenged Mr Scobie Mackenzie to make his statements good. His letter of challenge is dated the Bth of November. On the 20 :h another communication from Mr Douglas appeared, in the form of a reply to a wire from Mr Mackenzie of the same date, hi which he (Mr Mackenzie) invited Mr Douglas to meet him on the 27fch and discuss the matter on the public platform at Palmerston. Mr Douglas's reply was couched in far too strong language, but it is impossible to be surprised at this when we remember that Mr Mackenzie's statements bad been circulated for 12 days through the whole electorate and that he had given no reply to Mr Douglas's letter of the Bth.

The letter of Mr Douglas, which appeared in theObago Daily Times of the 24-th November, gave the flattest contradiction, couched in the most precise shape, to the original statement by Mr Scobie Mackenzie that the land in question was not worth the money paid for it by the Minister, and to this present day we have no commuaication, good, bad, or indifferent, from the author of the accusation (Mr Scobie Mackenzie) on the subject. Mr Douglas gives names, dates, and facts for his assertions as to the value of the land sold by him to the Government, and Mr Mackenzie has, as far as the public is concerned, maintained absolute silence. I understand, indeed, that at the rowdy meeting at Palmerston on the 27th he spoke at some length, but his speech has not been reported, and the public now only know of him that he made a very serious charge at an early part of his election campaign, that his charge was absolutely and specifically denied, and that he has shut up.

Now, I venture to characterise this conduct as not honourable or fair : it ia not thus that public battles should be fought. It may be that what Mr Douglas said is untrue, but the burden of proving it untrue lies on Mr Scobie Mackenzie, and he has not said one word to the public. I for one want to know if the land sold was worth the money or not, as on present information I am bound to believe that it was worth much more than Government paid for it. Will Mr Scobie Mackenzie give his proofs for the statements he made ? If he does not, will he not deserve to be called what the Minister for Lands called him ? I shall always regret that Mr Scobie Mackenzie left his accusation unsupported from the Bbh to the 27th — that is until it was impossible to have any contradiction circulated ; but if he will tell us now what reasons he had for saying what he did in the speech quoted above, the other matter will soon be forgotten as a mere piece of rather low-down electioneering tactics. Meantime, and until Mr Douglas's specific statements are dealt with, Mr Scobie Mackenzie's escutcheon is defiled, and he will stand convicted of conduct which can only be called dishonourable. — I am, &c, December 4-. Watch. TO THE EDITOB. Sir, — In your issue of 6th December I noticed a very curious and extremely dishonest letter 3igned "Watch," in which the writer, under a rather flioaßy disguise of moderation of tone, endeavour* to throw a shield of protection over Mr John Douglas in the matter of the Pomahaka sale, and to divert public attention from the real aspeat of the case. One sentence only in "Watch's" letter may be worthy of notice now, in order that the writer may have a further opportunity of considering the position he has taken up, after which, if he maintains that position, I may take occasion to deal with him again. The sentence is as follows :—: —

I and many others thought that Mr Scobie Mackenzie (after his Palmerston speech) had unearthed a job.

Now, the obvious meaning of that sentence is that while "Watch" and M many others" thought I had uuearthed a job they do not think so now. I therefore propose shortly fcj direct the attentiou of " Watch" and the public generally to the facts that have occurred and that have been uuearthed since I made that speech. It will then be for "Watch" to remain or to pretend to remain if he choosts under the easy belief that the Pomahaka purchase wan a perfectly straightforward and honourable transaefcon, especially on the part of Mr John Douglas. What, then, occurred since I made my speech ? Tho Hon. John fil'Kenzie replied to ib by throwing down upon the table of the hall in Palmerston a petition signed by 301 settlers ot the Pomahaka district. That was his sole defence for the purchase, and he made it in the following remarkable terms : —

Mr John Ritchie (Mr Douglas's nephew and the head of one of Mr M'Kenzie's departments) had nothing whatever to do with it. The history of the transaction he would give, and would lay every document in connection with it on the table, and he challenged Mr Scobic Mackenzie's friends to examine them.— (Applause ) If on inspection anything was found to be wrong he was willing to bear the odium, but if evert/thing pioved to be btraijjhtfonoard and honest, «t> ha claimed xuoukl be, the ca.be, then Mr Scobie Mackenzie should be called upon to apologise for having misled the electors. . . . The finl he heard of the matter ivas from Mr Thomas Mackenzie, a political partisan and bosom friend of his opponent's, who presented the petition. . . . In the opinion of settlers in the dhtriet it was land that should be purchased. Was it his duty under the circumstances to tie a piece of red tape round the petition, put it in a pigeon hole, and never look at it again? That no doubt was what his opponent would have done if in office.— (Hear, hear.) But he considered he had a duty to perform to the people, that he ought not to treat the petitions with

derision, scorn, and contempt, but see what could bo done. It is needless for me to say that the italics iv the above remarks are mine. The phrases emphasised are worthy of particular attention. Here then we have the defence. The land was purchased in response to a petition of the settlers, whose petition should uot be treated with contempt, Mr M'Keuzie apparently holding the very curious opinion that a petition must be complied with or else treated with contempt. Now then for the facts that have come to lighfi since my first speech. They may be shortly stated as follows : — 1. Mr John Douglas drew up this precious petition himself. He dare not deny it, and does not deny ib in the letter he printed attacking me. I detected his hand immediately I saw the petition, as did hundreds of others who know Mr Douglas ; and I exposed it at Eweburn weeks ago from the internal evidence of the petition itself, and from the "aspect" story which Mr Douglas told me some 10 years ago when he offered the land for £2 10s per acre. Now / A: now he drew it up. 2. There was at the time no movement whatever iv the district to get the Government to purchase this land ; no meeting of settlers ; none of the usual concomitants of a spontaneous movement of the kind. The first suggestion as to the purchase appears to have come from a local newspaper in an article which I am sorry to say I cannot quote from just at present, but which is very good reading indeed for those who admire Mr Douglas's literary style. Mr John Douglas contributed that article, and expressed some very kindly intentions indeed to the editor if he would insert it. Which he did. 3. When tho petition was drawn up by Mr Douglas it was forwarded by him to Wright, Sfcephenson, and Co. (mortgagees of the land), who had it type-written and sent on to the Pomahaka district for signature. 4. A copy of the petition was sent to the local agent of the Farmers' Agency (of wh'ch Mr Douglas is a shareholder), who presented it to all and sundry for signature. I have letters on the point from some who signed and others who refused to sign. 5. In addition to the help of the agent in question, canvassers were employed by Mr Douglas and paid by him to hawk the petition round for signature. Theae men were evidently instructed to make every individual, no matter what his occupation, sign himself as " settler." If they were nob instructed to do so, they took the task upon themselves, which is by no means likely. 6. The Hon. J. M'Kenzie eaid in Palmerston (as above quoted) that he knew nothing of the petition till Mr T. Mackenzie presented it. His memory is evidently at fault. Mr T. Mackenzie, as is common enough, kept the petition for several days before presenting it. In the interval the Hon, J. M'Keczie went to him to inquire what had become of the petition. 7. The Hon. J. M'Kenzie also stated that Mr John Ritchie had nothing to do with the matter. Here again he is mistaken. Mr John Ritchie was sufficiently interested to also make anxious inquiries of Mr T. Mackenzie as to the whereabouts of the petition. Sir, I mention all these (to me) sickening facts for the benefit of your correspondent "Watch," who, before I knew them myself, "thought I had unearthed a job," but does not think so now. I have by no means disclosed all I know, but the rest will keep for a future occasion. _ I make no comment further than to draw the attention of " Watch" and the public to the odious spectacle here presented to vs — the spectacle of a large landowner, by a disgraceful piece of imposture (for the petition should have been signed by himself alone), succeeding in unburdening himself of a heavily - mortgaged property, which for years he had been vainly trying to sell, and had long leased at a heavy annual loss, and gleefully casting it on the backs of the taxpayers of New Zealand. There may be persons — " Liberals," mostly, of the "Watch" stamp — who can rejoice over such a deplorable spectacle. But they may rest assured that the transaction will carry with it the stern reprobation of every honest man, no matter what his political creed may chance to be. And if a searching inquiry is not made into all the circumstances it will be a lasting disgrace to the colony.

It is hardly necessary for me to say that all the above and a great deal more was brought out by me in my last public speech at Palmerstcn, to which I had invited Mr John Douglas and Mr John M'Kenzie — both of whom declined; but my voice, especially when I mentioned Pomahaka, was drowned by an organised obstruction from my opponents, principally from Shag Point. — I am, &c, Scouie Mackenzie. Melness, December 8. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Only one inference can be drawn from tho silence of Mr Douglas — viz., that he cannot answer your scathiiig note and my specific charges. Since my former letter hereon other facts have become known which clinch the statements previously made. Tho rather extraordinary expression "scrolling" the petition used by Mr Douglas in his confession is veiy apt when we look at the meaning of the word " scroll" as given in a Scotch dictionary — viz , " to wiite the first rough draft or copy of."

Now in this instance ' ' the firs b rough draf fa or copy " of the petition which the Minister said " he ought not to treat with derision, scorn, and contempt" was scrolled iv the handwriting of Mr Douglas at Mount Royal, sent to his Dunedin agents, typewritten iv their office, and sent in their envelopes south to Clinton to the paid agents of Mr Douglas, who obtained the signatures of the " settlers " (?)

Mr Scobie Mackenzie, in his PAimer3ton speech, stated the rent at 6d per acre. It was in fact 6d before it was 9d. A fact carefully omitted by Mr Douglas in his letter. At the time of sale the rent was 9d, but the net return to Mr Douglas, leaving intere&t out of the question, was a fraction under 3d per acre, as he (Mr Douglas.) had to pay land iax Id in the pound and graduated tax l|d in tb.3 pound on £2 5s 3d, the taxable value of the land, amounting to a fraction over 6d per ac^e. In working out the annual loss which the property represented to Mr Douglas (and the corresponding annual gain to him by re-selling to the people at £2 10d per acre), I omitted to take these taxvis into account, forgetting that although tenants were bound to pay the ordinary local laxrs as stated by Mr Douglas, the land tax is, and must be, uuder all circumstances paid by the landlord.

Before the repeal of the property tax tha amount payable by Mr Douglas would be over £70. After the imposition of the land tnx and graduated tax the amount payable by Mr Douglas would be increased to £132 a year. The total annual loss, therefore, to Mr Douglas on the property at the date of sale was at least £1152.

The purchase thus represents an annual gain to Mr John Douglas of £ 1152, and an annual loss to the colony in laud tax alone of £132.

The relationship of Mr John Douglas and Mr John D. Ritchie may only be an unfortunate coincidence, but until

the Minister for Lands and Mr Ritchie clear up the awkward incident of their call, separately, upon Mr Thomas Mackenzie in quest of the Douglas petition, the Minister must lie under the imputation of not having told the truth when he said at Palmerston : "Mr John Ritchie had had nothing whatever to do with ib," and " the first he had heard of the matter was from Mr Thomas Mackenzie, a political partisan and bosom friend of his opponent's, who presented a petition from 400 people," &c.

Now, the fact is both Mr John Ritchie and the Hon. John M'Kenzie knew about the petition, which, as you pointed out, is absolutely worthless as expressing the opinion "of the real settlers in the district or the necessity for the purchase " ; and both called upon Mr Thomas Mackenzie in connection with it to hurry him up, a 9 it were. How did they know of the petition ? What need for haste ? To whom did time mean money ? Clearly only to Mr Douglas, who was under a daily loss of over £3, and to whom the sale was a matter of importance. Who prompted the Minister and Mr Ritchie to move with bo much zeal in this matter P Certainly not the settlers, for the Minister had not yet heard from them. Certainly not Mr Thomas Mackenzie, who never presented the petition, which possibly lay unopened in his pigeonhole until unearthed by the very zealous Minister and the equally zealous chief inspector of stock, who •'had had nothing to do wiuh ib."

The Minister said " it was only fair to meet this terrible charge which had been publicly made." But to this day he has not met the charge which he admits to be territla. His defence is, first, "That he jir^t heard of the matter from Mr Thomas Mackenzie." This is distinctly not true, as ib was he who called upon Mr Thomas Mackenzie for the petition, not Mr Thomas Mackenzie who presented it. Second, "That the purchase flowed naturally from the petition of the 301 settlers." This Mr Douglas contradicts, saying the petition had very little to do with the purchase. Clearly Mr Douglas is correct, for he was the 1 petitioner, and knew all about it. The settlers knew nothing about it, and had nothing whatever to do with it ; and had the Minister shown less indecent haste and made even the most cursory inquiry in the district as to the hona fides of the demand for land for settlement he would at once have discovered that the petition was, as you so aptly put it, "conceived in duplicity," and a fraud from top to bottom — I am, &0., X. December 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — If the Hon. John M'Kenzie is open to hire out his Billingsgate for appropriate use, your correspondent ' ' Watch " might conceivably be fitted with his desserts ; otherwise he must be better treated than he should be, for one hardly cares to call him in print anything worse than a cunning and yet clumsy slanderer, which is obviously the grossest flattery as applied to " Watch."

Your correspondent is sufficiently brazen to prebend that "Mr Douglas courteously but firmly challenged Mr Scobie Mackenzie to make his statements good." Mr Douglas wrote a letter to the papers which possibly was courteous when compared with the standard of a New South Wales legislator, but which, as compared with the ordinary language of gentlemen, was hardly worth even the passing contempt it evoked. But that is not the point. If, concealed in the scurrility of its expressions, there had been the remotest trace of a challenge to Mr Scobie Mackenzie to make his statements good, or anything manly and straightforward in the way of meeting those statements at all, Mr John Douglas and his coadjutor in the Pomahaka transaction might have occupied a different position before their fellow men today. Bufc the very reverse was the case. The words quoted by "Watch" from Mr Scobie Mackenzie's speech at Palmerston stand true and unassailed to the present moment, except that as regards the rent of 6d per acre it has been raised to 9d during the lessee's later term, a fact which does not for a moment touch the principle involved. Mr Douglas evaded this and the other facts, but he has never denied them ; and he dare not. When Mr Douglas wrote Mr Scobie Mackenzie a fumbling, sly, half-cowering, and half-hectoring letter, not denying his facts but asking what his authority was for them and so on, in the vain hope that, after all, Mr Scobie Mackenzie might not know as much of the transaction as he (Vlr Douglas) had only too much reason to fear he did know, what was Mr Scobie Mackenz ; e's reply, given in the full publicity of election meetings and reported fully in the Press at his own desire ? It was : " Sir, this purchase from you* was a public transaction, paid for by public money. I will have no private letters or hole-and-corner business about it. Meet me on the public platform before the people of Palmerston — you, and your Minister for Lands too, — and answer my questions. Be very sure I will also answer yours." Was that challenge accepted ? Oh, no ! It was a staggerer ;it was not to be thought of. Discuss the Pomahaka business before the very public itself — why, the thought was positively horrifying ! Anything rather than that.

Those, Sir, are the facts, known now to all the world. Mr Scobie Mackenzie, a public man of the highest repute, with proofs overwhelming of the true nature of this odious business in his pocket, dares the principals in the transaction to meet him face to face before the people and answer the questions he will put, and he pledges himself, to answer theirs. They don't come. And that is what your correspondent " Watch " calls " challenging Mr Scobie Mackenzie to make his statements good " !

But that is not all. In addition to the statements originally made at P^lmerstou, Mr Scobie Mackrcr z : e afc Eweburn and other places charged Mr John Douglas directly with the authorship of the 2 )e tition, which purpirted to come from " settlers," asking for Pomahaka to be bought. He charged that that petiii^n, so prepared, had been hawked round hastily by paid canvasstr-t (and those canvassers have toki who paid them), and had been despatched to Wellington with the signatures of any Tom, Dick, or Harry that could be got attached, and there (I may add from my own knowledge, though Mr Mackenzie, I believe, did no*;) was specially looked after by Mr John M'Keczie and his protege, Mr John Douglas's nephew, who was made chief inspector of stock over everybody's head when Mr John M'Kenzie came into office. Ido not, of course, deny that these gentlemen had a perfect right to look after a public document at any time. In answer to these damning charges Mr Douglas wrote a letter to you, Sir, in which he did nob— ■ for he dare not — deny them, but in which he made the astounding further admission that (on the strength, as the Minister declares, of this so-called " petition ") he actually tried to squeeze 70s per acre out of the pockets of the people of New Zealand for land which he had valued to that same people for taxation purposes at 45s ! These admissions were accompanied by several abusive expressions, bub admissions they were— naked, bufc for the clothing of scurrility which Mr John Dougla" 1 , not altogether erroneously, deemed appropriate to them.

What, for the second time, was Mr Scobie Mackenzie's reply? He repeated the oharges

sincerely, quietly, firmly, and with perfect temper — every word of them— and pledged himself to prove them ; and for the second time he iuvitcd Mr John Douglas to come to his Palmerston meeting and disprove them, or even deny them, if he could. And he invited the Minister, tao. And the response? Mr Johu Douglas, popr dear gentleman, had a bad cold : he had the doctor treating him ; oh, dear no, he really, really couldn't. Mr John M'Kenzie " had made other arrangements " — which turned out to be arrangements to stay at home. It does not appear that he even had a bad cold. This kind of thing is what "Watch" calls " inviting Mr Seobie Mackenzie to make his statements good " !

But what your correspondent "Watch" does not know, or more probably pretends not to know, is this: On the Palmerston platform, without the assistance of the abusive but remarkably cautious Mr Douglas and the " arranging" bufc prudent Mr John M'Kenzie, Mr Scobie Mackenzie did make his statements good, and before the whole people proved them to the hilt. And why were not his words reported ? Uecause a mob of rowdies, imported for the purpose from a distance and openly hounded on and fei with whisky all through the speech, prevented the reporter present from catchinrj what v:as said or even attempting to do so. And although this precious perlormance was not conducted under the precentorship of the members of Mr John M'Kenzie's own family, they were at least seen to drivo them into Palmerston for the occasion. And this is "inviting Mr Scobie Mackenzie to make his charges good " ! Ib bowed the Palmerston people to the earth with shame — not the same kind of shame, either, that kept Messrs M'Keuzie and Douglas at horns tbe while. Bufc let a report appear of what Mr Scobie Mackenzie there stated openly, for all the world to hear — and ho told us at Palmerston thafc he desired that to be done, — and the shame would be on the shoulders of those who, first slinking on one ground or the other from the acceptance of a public challenge, were driven iv desperation to resort to the howls and catcalls of an imported mob of well-primed rowdies to stifle at any price the voice cf honest denunciation, and at all hazards keep the naked truth from getting into the papers or even reaching the ears of the electors.

Mr Scobie Mackenzie has rarely done anything more fearless, more thorough, or more absolutely unanswerable during his brilliant public career than the great public service he has performed in connection with this notorious Pomahaka business ; and never can a man have more earnestly prayed to he saved from his friends than Mr John Douglas must be praying to-day to be saved from the terribly perilous indiscretions of his soi-disant "friend," but ruinously real enemy, " Watch." — I am, &c, Watch and Pray.

December 8

P.S. — I need hardly say that I am an outsider in this business, and have had absolutely no communication with Mr Scobie Mackenzie or any one on his behalf on the subject of "Watch's" letter. lam one of the public who are grateful to a public man for his fearless exposure of a transaction the like of which, thanks to Mr Scobie Mackenzie, it may be confidently hoped will hardly be attempted again.

TO THE EDITOB.

Sin, — Merely premising, in reply to two correspondents on this subject, that I do not know Mr John Douglas even by sight, and thafc I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with any of the parties to the dispute re Pomahaka, I proceed to the real question at issue.

Let me restate" the position : On November 6 Mr Scobie Mackenzie plainly accused the Minister for Lands of having used the public money to obtain Mr John Douglas's vote and interest at the late election by buying from him. this Pomahaka land at a price far too high for its real value. In reply, Mr Douglas says that in 1882 he refused £3 83 3d per acre for the property, and this through his agent Mr Begg, that he " had an offer of £4 5s (or rather £4 10s) per acre at another time " ; that in 1883 his Clinton agent was offered £3 per acre for 1000 acres ; that in 1889 he sold 1450 acres of this same property, and this not the best of it, for £3 12s per acre, and that the buyers have since cultivated their holdings successfully, and have paid up every farthing of the purchase money. He also said that he could have obtained 3s per acre rent for a fixed period, bufc that this did not suit him. He, further, challenged Mr Scobie Mackenzie to prove his statements.

Now, the reply to all these assertions, which, if true, show conclusively that the land was well worth the price Government have paid, appears to me evasive in the extreme. The only point in the original accusation was that the Minister for Lands had corruptly paid too much for the land in order to get votes. If the Minister for Lands did this, heis certainly unfit to hold any public office, but the very gravity of the offence renders it obligatory on the accuser to substantiate his charge. Now, up to the present time the only attempted proof for the serious accusation is that Mr Douglas was mainly instrumental in getting up the petition. I am sure Mr Scobie Mackenzie would not have stated so definitely that this was so if he were not quite sure of it; bub assuming this to be true, where does the Minister for Lands come in ? It is nob even alleged that he knew how the petition was got up. I am informed by one who was present at the disgracefully rowdy meeting at Falmerston that Mr Scobie Mackenzie dealt with the whole master there, but the public have not heard one word about it Would it be expecting too much from Mr Scobie Mackenzie to ask him now to publicly prcduce his proofs that the Minister i'or Lands bought this laud at a price far too high in order to get votes. As lam writing for no private reasons of any kind, being only sincerely anxious to know the real truth about the matter, I will pub my question in its easiest form : Will Mr Scobie Mackenzie give the public his proofs that the Pomabaka land bought is nob worth the money given ? The public will draw its own inference as to the other part of my question. I am srrry that it feems impossible to discuss any public question without giving rise to a lot of mean and personal insinuations, but as I only want to get at facts the methods of your correspondents pa&s me by. The only really important part of the whole matter is this — viz , Is the land worth the money or is ifc not P If Mr Scobie Mackenzie has made this accusation without proper proof in his possession ha has done a very base thing ; bufc I for one do not thirik this likely. If, on the other hand, the Minister for Lands has done what he is accused of doing, no words can be used sufficiently severe to characterise hia conduct. I pass by without reply the letter signed " Watch and Pray," not only because of its tone, but because the writer has evidently got mixed up as to his facts. In conclusion, I will only say again that when Mr Scobie Mackenzie made his accusation I for one thought he had unearthed a 30b. I am not quite sure now. Until Mr John Douglas's statements as to the value of the land are answered I am going to suspend my judgment.—. I am, &c, December 11, Watch,

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — In your supplement of Saturday appears a letter signed "Scobie Mackenzie," and with your permission I will take exception to some of the statements made by that gentleman. In the first place he says : " Now, then, for the facts that have come to light since my first speech. They may be shortly stated as follows," and then follow facts numbered from 1 to 7. I am afraid Mr Scobie Mackenzie upsets the truth of the old saw : " Facts are chiela that winna ding," for his "facts " fairly bristle with inaccuracies from beginning to end.

I do not wish to advocate Mr John Douglas's cause. He is quite competent to do that himself, although perhaps in language more forcible than polite. My reason for replying to Mr Mackenzie's letter is due to his saying : " There was at the time no movement whatever in the district to get the Government to purchase this land ; no meeting of settlers ; none of the usual concomitants of a spontaneous movement of the kind. The first suggestion as to the purchase appears to have come from a local newspaper in an article which I am sorry to say I cannot quote from just at present, but which is very good reading indeed for those who admire Mr Douglas's literary style. Mr John Douglas contributed that article, and expressed some very kindly intentions indeed to the editor if he would insert it. Which he did." The local paper referred to is the C utha County Gazette, published at Clinton, and of which I am editor. I therefore intend to lay the following "facts" before your readers, and when they have read them I trust that they will agree that Mr Mackenzie is endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill :— Mr Mackenzie is wrong when he says, in his " fact" 2, "there was at the time no movement whatever in the district to get the Government to purchase the land."

Months previous to the signing of the petition the matter of getting Government to purchase the Pomahaka estate was favourably discussed by "settlers," and right up to the time of signing the petition " settlers " recognised the advantages to be gained by such purchase. And to prove that it was quite unnecessary to "hawk" the petition, I may say that several "settlers" called at my office and asked if a copy of the petition was there for signature, and on being informed that it was to be found at the Prince of Wales Hotel they made it their business to go there and sign it. Does Mr Scobie Mackenzie wish the people of this colony to believe that the "settlers" of this district actually entered into a conspiracy with Mr John Douglas to defraud the G jvernment ? Does he think for a moment that a thoroughly practical and honest farmer would sign a petition for the Government to purchase land which he knew to be of inferior quality ? Wait till the laud is thrown open for settlement, Mr Mackenzie, and then you will follow in the wake of those who " knew what a fraud " the Cheviot estate purchase was. From practical farmers I gather that considerably more than the upset price will be realised. In reference to his insinuation that the leading article in my paper was written by Mr John Douglas, I may say that such was the case. Mr Douglas did write it. It happened in this way ; Mr Jvhn Douglas was in Clinton just prior to the circulation of the petition. I had a conversation with him, and as I make no pretensions of being able to describe " aspect," and other farming terms, I asked Mr Douglas to write an article on the subject. He was kind enough to do so, and I inserted it. I can't make out what Mr Mackenzie refers to when he says : " And expressed some very kindly intentions indeed to the editor if he would insert it." Surely he does not mean to insinuate bribery and corruption. Oh no, Mr Mackenzie; we couldn't do such a thing. An editor of an up-country journal is above suspicion. He takes from abuse up to a pair of lovely black eyes ; but he never takes a bribe — because he never gets the chance. Now, all I ever received from Mr John Douglas was a good cigar and a few directions about "aspect," as seen through a good glass of whisky. I really fail to see that Mr John Douglas sinned so terribly if he did write the petition and the article. Surely it cannot be commercial immorality for a man who has a property for sale to use such efforts to induce an intending purchaser to close. A great deal has also been made of the fact that the Hon. John M'Kenzie and Mr Ritchie had made inquiries in reference to the petition which Mr Thomas Mackenzie, M.H.R.," for reasons best known to himself, was somewhat dilatory in presenting to the House. I presume that Mr Douglas would naturally make inquiries as to whether the petition had been presented, and I ateo presume that he would naturally seek such information from a relative or friend in a position to give same. In conclusion, I trust that when the time arrives Mr Scobie Mackenzie will be the first to come forward and admit that such purchase was after all not a bad one — I am, &c, Clinton, December 11. Walter Keay.

TO THE EDITOB.

Sir, — The large number of letters and articles inserted in your journals in connection with this subject, and all of them, with few exceptions, assailing my honesty of purpose and action in this, and reputation as an upright business man — denouncing without reason or proof, in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, the quality and value of the lands forming the subject of this purchase ; disputing the authenticity of the petition prepared by myself and others to test the real feelings, not only of those who had expressed desire to invest in the land, but of the mass of settlers and would-be settlers reaching fromWaipahi to Balclutha necessitate a reply. The chief object of this petition, besides first testing the feeling of buyers, being to secure for investors — especially the many who would be new beginners — the Government's easy and thus suitable terms of payment, more favourable than a private individual could afford.

Well, when reduced to a concrete shape, my aiding the settlers in th's is really the beginning and end of the charge* brought against me Then who are my assailants in this matter ? First, Mr Scobie Mackenzie, the defeated candidate by the Hon. John M K»-nzie at the Waihemo election. I shall refer to Mr Scobie Mackenzie more fully by-and-bye. Second, a gentleman who signs uucJer the norn de -plume " X. " The author of tbis signature the Otago D dly Times refuses to disclose. Thisrefusjl, though it adds to my curiosity, does not alter the case, as "X's" revengeful and outrageous statements and other points lead the scent to tin only gentleman capable of euch conduct. Perhaps his experiences with the Hon. John M'Keuzle in connection with Mackerzie Country runs may have something to do with this bad feeling Then "X," not being personally interested in this d-iujmte, yet steps into the arena con amove, not having, th'it lam aware cf, any cause of quarrel with me. His attacking and denouncing myself without cause and depreciating the Pomahaka Downs Burning Plains estate sold by myself to the Government — this in face of the fact that it should be against his own interests, I imagine, to depreciate these lands, which really adjoin lands that, I apprehend, he and others associated with him are desirous (more praise to them !) of selling. Can

it be that affection for the Hon. John M'Kenzie inspires this enthusiasm towards myself ? I hold, however, that no fair-minded man will say that my selling this property to Government through the Land Purchase Commissioners justifies "X" in showing such utter disregard of commercial decency in so unfairly and unjustifiably, and without any creditable objecb, thu3 assailing me, and without cause. It is wrong in any man under any circumstances to allow the feeling for revenge to smother reason, if not injure health. That this is affecting X's mind is evident from the — I cannot call it anything but — twaddle uttered in attempting to demonstrate thab the rent of a section of land in its natural sbate without a proper fixed tenure, and minus buildings, yards, &c , determines its true selling value. Let him try seriously to convince any of his neighbours in town who possess a vacant section that thereal market value of such section is what it yields in its state of comparative desuetude. But don'r, for your own sake, attempt this, because if you do he will reply in a low, serious tone, expressing fear of your trip Home not having had the desired effect. So I say don't.

Again, when attempting to take Mr Scobie Mackenzie out of his untruthful statements about the 6d per acre per annum ren 1 ", you try to do so by stating that it should have been stated 9d, but that it was once 6d per acre per annum, again jou are at sea — not Seicliff this time. I will tell you in confidence about the 6d per acre ; but mind, you must not tell anyone. It happened thusly : When the company's term expired some years ago they told my Danedin agents they would not longer occupy the ground unless it were fenced. Fencing is easier said than done. But besides that it was necessary to make an exc.imbion of land to secure a proper fence line. This took more time. Being a lover of peace, I did not impound the sheep for trespass meantime. So when fencing and excambion were fixed up, the parties concerned agreed to pay 6d per acre for the unexpired portion of the year — not 6d per acre per annum, note. Let this stand for one lesson to you. You write pleadingly, complaining of my not answering your letters, and expressing your confidence that I was so dumbfounded by your balderdash that I was afraid to do so. Not a r raid, let me explain, but fact is I have had an attack for last fortnight of rheumatic gout and rheumatism, noc conducive to letterwriting, and, besides, this being the busy season, pray excuse my not devoting more time and space to your special edification. But for the causes mentioned, you might not have had to complain of either reticence or brevity.

Now with respect to Mr Scobie Mackenzie, let me ask what had I done to merit his anathemas. He made and published certain statements in relation to this matter, denouncing my honour if not my honesty a3 a business man. I thereupon wrote him what I assert to be quite as courteous a letter as circumstances could demand, simply asking his authority for making these statements. You will note that I did not father the statements upon him, because I, as well as others, merely look upon him as partly the mouthpiece of a party who had some wicked purpose to serve in circulating those malicious untruths. Although thus asking his authority, I knew at the time that those statements were false as well as malicious and misleading. I had no desire to offensively characterise the3e without first affording him ample opportunity of stating his authority and correcting his mistake. That I really acted thus is evidenced by my said letter of November 8, wherein I point out to t him that I had more properties than one in the south— suggesting, as it were, that he might have been misled. But, as my letter of November 8 has been characterised by my denouncers as discourteous, I reproduce it here. It is a short one :—: —

Mount Royal, Bth November 1893. M. J. Scobie Mackenzie, Esq. Dear Sir,— Not being present at your political meeting at Palmerston on Monday night last, will you pardon my now asking your authority in making the following statements regarding the sale of that portion of the Pomahaka Downs and Burning Plains estate sold a few weeks ago by myself to the New Zealand Government at 50s per acre ? I quote verbatim from the Otago Daily Times's report of your speech :— Ist : " I heard it offered myself for sale at the same price, I think, 10 years ago." Kindly say who you heard offer the property, and to whom, at 50s per acre ; when and where.

2nd : Say who your authority is in stating " I believe even at that rent, Gd per acre, the land was about to be thrown up." 3rd : Say who your authority is for stating that this property sold by me to the New Zealand Government is really the property referred to in your speech as "a thoroughly bad purchase," &c. Let me, however, in putting this query point out that I had more properties than one in the south, but that these differ in description, quality, and value as night ditters from day. Kindly favour me with aJull reply to my above queries, and as speedily as possible.— l am, &c , (Signed) John Douglas.

Now, had Blr Scobie Mackenzie followed common business rules, or even common courtesy, and answered this letter in course, the question of the truthfulness of the statements could have been disposed of there and then. The subject at issue was a point involving the question of truth or falsehood, and upon the determination of which my character hinged. You must admit this could not brook delay. These accusations against me being made through the press, my challenge of these statements was also mach through the press. I was surely entitled to a prompt reply also through the press. A man who shows such utter disregard of truth, and systematically, in discussion and even in writing, attributes false motives to his disputant, is not a man to argue with, especially when, the question is simply a matter of producing evidence involving the character of another. There was really nothing to dispute aboub. To establish his point he must produce, without fail, the necessary evidence — that is, if he could. But this is what he could not then, nor cannot now do. And he ha 3 proved himself devoid of honour by allowing these false statements, knowingly and for political ends, to be published uncontradicted through the length and breadth of the land, thereby proclaiming his utfcer destitution of both feeling and honour. He has attempted every subterfuge to escape confessing the falsity of these statements — and which he well knows to be false — and does this while he aa well knows that in doing so he is falsely and maliciously slandering the character of myself. His game — and he has carried it out — was to secure that thefe misleading falsehoods denouncing myselt were published and circulated through the length and breadth of the land until after the elections, knowing that, although I exposed the falsehoods, after the election they would only be seen by few, while he would meantime have the satisfaction of ruining my reputation as far as in his power all over the colonies This heartless, cruel, dishonourable conduct, I hold, stamps him in the eyes cf every honourable man as a person void of feeling, or principle, or honour. A man who will publish whut he knows to be untrue, to the injury of his neighbour, or having done so, if in ignorance, refuses when challenged to either certify or retract this offence, he still refuses to do either — such a mac, I say, voluntarily criminates himself.

question of truth or falsehood affecting my rcputioii

Let me here give a specimen of what I have accused Mr Scobie Mackenzie of — namely, malconstruing the words and actiona of others. This is illustrated by the manner in which he falsely throws suspicion and malconstrues what the Hon. John M'Kenzie really said respecting his treatment of the petition. Well, Mr Scobie Mackenzie gives out — but note it is only an unfounded assumption — I quote his words, " that Mr John M'Kenzie apparently holds the very curious opinion that a petition must be complied with or else treated with contempt." I shall in a moment prove this malconstruction of the Hon. John M'Kenzie's words to be done for a misleading, malicious purpose. Mr Scobie Mackenzie had, in his letter making this statement, just finished making a verbatim extract of what Mr John 3PKenzie really said, as follows :—": — " He had a duty to perform to the people ; that he ought not to treat the petition with derision, scorn, and contempt, but see what could be done." Now I appeal to common sense. Does this statement bear the idiotic malconstruction made by Mr Scobie Mackenzie ? Certainly not. This is a fair specimen of a "Scobieism" — of how he systematically malconstrues the utterances of others. Now what did the Hon. John M'Kenzie really do respecting this petition ? Well, he simply handed the matter over to the Land Purchase Commissioners, who communicated with myself on the subject. They appointed valuators to examine, at different times, and value the property. This action on the part of the Hon. John M'Kenzie, it will be observed, is very different from that ascribed to him by Mr Scobie Mackenzie. What chance has any Minister — or man for that matter — who has his utterances thus malconstrued, as has been done by Mr Scobie Mackenzie ? Malconstructions made and then held up as veritable facts, and the person thus injured judged and condemned upon this malconstrued evidence. Any business man knows that a petition may be said to be treated with contempt if thrown into a pigeon-hole without its haying fair or any attention ; but receiving a petition and simply treating it upon its merits, whether that be granting or denying its prayer, would bs treating it with respect. Judging by the Land Purchase Commissioners' action towards myself, this is what the Hon. John M'Kenzie really did. He placed the matter in the hands of the Land Purchase Commissioners, who acted entirely and independently of the Hon. John M'Kenzie. It was only upon my refusing their offer of 50s per acre that they inquired of him, then wired to me they had done so, and that his reply was not to spring upon their valuation — namely, 50s per acre. There the Hon. John M'Keczie's interference began and ended, as far as I had to do with it. Let me crave your attention for a moment while I refer to the offensive insinuations thrown out against me because of my quoting 70s per acre to the Government for this property. In doiug so, I took as my basis of value the price (723 6d per acre) obtained at public sale for the 14-50 acres, part of same property, fold in June 1889 — and that part not of so good quality as the portion of same sold to Government. The Government valuators, I believe, took as their basis of value the assessment valuation plus the usual 10 per cent. The assessment valuation might naturally, though imperceptibily, be influenced by the low nominal rental of 9d per acre accepted by me, though to enable me to resume possession if I sold ; so I do not consider this so true and fair a criterion of selling value as the price actually obtained at public sale in June 1889 — viz., 72s 6d per acre. Further, let me point out that there being no buildings or yards on the property, I had to lease the ground to one or other of my neighbours ; but .being in continual expectation of selling the land, I was not so exacting about rent as I should otherwise have been. As already explained, the land was never leased at 6d per acre per annum. The rent ranged from 2s to 9d per acre per annum, and I could have had 3s per acre per annum if I had given a fixed tenure. Mr Scobie Mackenzie's statement that I offered this property about 10 years ago at 503 per acre is not consistent with fact. I have both written and oral evidence to prove that at that very time I refused £28,000 for the property — equal to £3 8s 3d per acre. As already mentioned, I had refused much higher offers even than that. I select this particular offer as being made at the very time Mr Scobie Mackenzie erroneously says this land was offered at 50s per acre, but which error he has not yet had the courtesy to confess. The petition I have already referred to. Settlement through Government was desired by farmers and would-be settlers in the south six months before the petition was drafted. I have the word of those who had charge of the petition that none but bona fide signatures were adhibited thereto. Had I sold the estate privately, probably it would have been all taken up by a few men, and at a higher price than I got from Government. Some of them wanted as much as 2000 acres and over in one farm. The Government, however, would not Bell in larger areas than 320 acres in one farm. The Government terms being liberal are better suited to new b?ginners; bo that in selling through the Government the country will be benefited by being much closer settled. Can any unprejudiced man fairly point to any act or words or intention of mine from first to last in connection with this matter not consistent with straightforward fair dealing, or not showing due regard to the interests of others? Further, can any expression or word in this petition be pointed to as misleading or not strictly consistent with fact ? The whole business from iirst to last has been done openly and aboveboard, and I challenge anyone to disprove this. lam proud of the settlement, and feel, unle c s mismanaged, which I have no apprehension of, that it will prove a perfect and complete buccses, and redound to the credit of the Hon. John M'Kenzie, as well as the Land Purchase Commission ; and I must not omit Mr Adams, who makes it a pet settlement. Then, I ask, what justification is there for Mr Scobie Mackenzie or his satellites resorting to falsehood and every discreditable device in their power, if it can, directly or indirectly, fairly or unfaiily, but injure myself ? There must surely be some other reason at work bf sides a desire to injure myself and unfairly and uujustly depreciate the Pomahaka Downs Burning Plains estate because sold by myself to the Governmfnt.

A veritable mare's nesb or mountain made out of a molehill. It v marvellous how a really vitiated mind can misinterpret and malconstrue the very thoughts as well as actions of others. Mr Scobie Mackenzie re&ts his denunciations upon a very insecure foundation in trying to make capital of Mr Ritchie being advised of the land settlement petition being despatched from the south. Was it, I ask, a criminal or unnatural thing for me, upon learning that the petition had been sent from the south to Mr T. Mackenzie at Wellington, to mention the fact to Mr Ritchie ? Well, it was done in this wise : In writing Mr Ritchie I mentioned that the petition had been sent to Mr T. Mackenzie, and expressed a hope that legislators would be able to spare as much time from worrying each other as to consider the petition ; that I was anxious to learn their decision respecting this, because

I found I had plenty of buyers, were I to sell in largish-sized blocks ; that I believed I could make a better price in this way, and would try this mode if the Government did not bite at onee — my object in desiring a speedy answer being that I might make financial arrangements for selling privately and on terms sufficiently long to suit buyers. Mr Ritchie had the supervision of this property for many years while I was living in Canterbury, and had seen and really knew more of it than I did myself. Where, then, _is the criminality of Mr Ritchie mentioning to both Mr T. Mackenzie and Mr J. M'Kenzie that ha had just heard through myself that a petition had been ssnt from the south ? What is there in the Hon. John M'Kenzie asking Mr T. Mackenzie if this was a fact ? The petition being in Mr T. Mackenzie's possession, it was only through him that the Hon. J. M'Kenzie could first see it or learn its purport.

We have another "Scobieism" exposed in to-day's Otago Daily Times — namely, the false accusation brought against myself of bribing the editor of the Clutha County Gazette to insert a certain article. The letter in to-day's Times makes it plain that the article in question was written because of the editor's coming to the hotel where I was staying, and asking me as a favour to do so, he inserting it without fee or reward. Strange what an overmastering power this propensity for disregarding truth and attributing wrong motives and actions to others exercises over individuals thusjnfluenced ! Stranger still that not an utterance can he make respecting myself but it must be distorted to suit the bent of his corrupt imagination ! I would like to like Mr Scobie Mackenzie ; you know, but the unfortunate thing is, you know, that I have a natural dread, if not dislike, of people whose minds are so twisted that they cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood. In conclusion, let me say the more I see and the more I hear of Mr Scobie Mackenzie the more convinced I am of his utter disregard of fairplay and justice. Moreover, a mind continually bent upon miscontruing not only the actions but the thoughts and intentions of others is not a happy possession. " Evil be to him that evil thinks " does not appear to have standing room in his ethics. He has not even yet answered my queries, which makes it evident that he is utterly afraid to commit his reply to writing, and so has landed himself between Scylla and Chary bdis. — I am, &c. f December 13. John Douglas. P.S.— "Watch and Pray" (it should be Prey) is beneath contempt.— J. D.

Please note that my difference with Mr Scobie Mackenzie involves no political point, simply a