MR BRIGHTON'S CASE.

Southland Times, Issue 17293, 13 March 1913, Page 2

MR BRIGHTON'S CASE.

To the Editor. Sir. —In your Issue of to-day it would seem that I have been speaking to a reporter. Had I known that I would have been more explicit re my position and intentions. As far as the Judge's decision is concerned, it never troubled me the least whether he gave his decision for me or against me. I had gained the point I wanted, vlr-, to bring before the people that the Government was giving the people’s wealtli away for nothing not only this Government, • but all its predecessors, The Government only brought me into a very nasty position, for it offered to me what I had valued at £13:11 per acre for Fis per acre, which, had T taken advantage of and kept for myself, would have shut, my mouth. As a professing Christian and a professing Socialist —(o me these phrases have one and the same meaning it was a sore temptation. Re the judge’s decision, I will try to make plain how it affects me. Had ho decided in my favour I would have had to part with my two sections, as I could not keep them and speak. My mouth would have been shut. Seeing he has decided against me, T can bold the ground and still speak. Why should t appeal against the Judge's decision? Xo, I leave U for those who have l.i.p. leases to say whether I should appeal or not - If they want an appeal then I must go on, but they will have to provide the needful. I have no wish to slop anyone now from getting the mineral wealth, even for nothing, as they think, for it will only be In thought they will get it. It will simply be putting it in one pocket, and taking it out again. But I mean not only to take it out of their pockets, but out of all those who have obtained possession of what they have not paid for, through the short sightednejs of all the Governments in parting with an article of which they did not know the value, and for which they were not paid. The law is supposed to he equal for all, and that Is as it should be. X;»w the Judge’s decision is not equal. 1 did smile when he said I would he geitlng something for nothing. If 1 were, t ie fault was not his, it was the Government’s fault. They had been, and are. givinp something for nothing all the time. Same previously have had something for nothing, so why not the others? Why not put them all on the same footing, and make them pay for that article, as they bring it forth out of the storehouse of the people? There

would be no hardship in such a transaction to any right-thinking person. Of course a thief and a robber is not a right-thinking person he only thinks one-sided, and that is for himself. The law is against all such. As to whether they appeal or not, I must, go on with them. It is a thing of to-day. I have been at it for over twenty-five years, and there is still much to do. —I am, etc., GAVIN BRIGHTON. Nightcaps, March 11.