Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1887. Soot Bags.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 2086, 29 June 1887, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1887. Soot Bags.

Ir any man heartily desires to be “ saved from his friends,” that man is Mr Bunny —that is if he has read the garbage in the Carterton ‘ Observer ’ of June 18 and 25, entitled “ Our Political Course ” and “Political Coarseness.” On April 15,1884, Mi- Bunny—then contesting the Thorndon seat—speaking in Wellington, said “ But I can tell Dr Newman or any of his friends that this election shall be fought by me in a thoroughly gentlemanly spirit.” On May 5, ’B4, speaking in same city, Mr Bunny said “My idea of fighting is to fight fail ly arid straightforwardly." Good! Now these ‘ Observers ’ boast they are conducting j Mr Bunny’s election campaign; we, therefore, invite his attention to the filth in type of June 18 and 25 and ask—if these be his ideas of fighting in a “ thoroughly gentlemanly spirit,” and “fairly and straightforwardly" —how would he act when desiring to indulge a blackguardly spirit and to deal foully with an opponent ? Is it possible Mr Bunny keeps his good manners for the city and deems blackguardism good enough for the Wairarapa P If so, the Wairarapa electors will know how to appreciate his low estimate of them. Those electors consider the 4 Observers ’ Mr Bunny’s mouthpiece, and if he desires the respect of decent men be will either disown his pretended allies or teach them common decency—he might teach them English and spelling at the same time He should do these things in his own interest. As for us, neither the 4 Observers ’ indecencies, ignorant inuendo, nor blatant braggadocio will move us a haiisbreadth from our course. We shall no more attempt to bandy brutalities with them than to punch a soot bag or wrestle with a Chinese leper, We shall dig out from their mud such shreds of argument as are discoverable and show their rottenness. We shall, when necessary, demonstrate the worthlessness of their assertions, and thus holding these noisy swashbucklers by the throat shall occasionally give them a good humored shake for the delectation of onlookers. Let the 4 Observers ’ continue their stupidity ; they will afford amusement and harm none but poor Mr Bunny. In the ‘Observers’ “article” of June 25 are 155 lines. Of these 110 lines contain mere low abuse ; the remaining 45 abuse and bald assertion co-mingled. Having thus briefly dealt with the first, we will now dispose of the remainder. “Mr Bunny,” they assert, “ intellectually, and as a speaker and politician, is as superior to Mr Buchanan as is a farthing rushlight to the noonday sun.” With regard to Mr Bunny’s “intellectuality ” we can only say, if he countenances the 4 Observers ’ scurrility it must be of a low type. If by “ intellectuality ” these people mean fluency, we admit MiBunny’s training as a lawyer has given him an advantage over Mr Buchanan and that Mr Bunny can talk five words to Mr Buchanan’s one—though the latter manages to protect his constituent* in the House and is listened to with respect, which is more than some professional talkers can say. Indeed, fluency is not always a sign of intellectuality. The 4 Observers,’ for instance, are fluent writers ; that is, they write a number of words—but there’s nothing in them. With respect to Mr Btinny being the better politician, that again all depends on what is meant by the word. If the 4 Observers’ mean 44 one devoted to politics,” we agree that Mr Bunny is devoted to them and that he has made politics pay him very handsomely. When we remember the long list of officers, for which the country pays, Mr Bunny has held and still holds, we are convinced he is a very acute professional politician indeed. But most men think professional politicians are the bane of this country. However superior Mr Bunny may be to Mr Bu, chauau, the electors will also remember that the former with all his advantages of 44 intellectuality " and legal education is a dependent upon the country, while Mr Buchanan, despite his humble begin, nings, has by honest work made a position for himself. We dislike using these arguments; they are forced upon us. Mr Buchauau does not pretend tp be an orator or a professional politician, His role is hard work and steady devotion to the interests of his constituents. It is not the ready talkers who do the work of the House or country, and even the eloquence of a Mr Bunny would not sway one vote in the House. But let these mud throwers who hope a little of their mud may sick, show, if they can, that Mr Buchauau has ever broken a political E remise; let them show when and how e has spared time or energy in attending to his public duties or ever shirked his obligations to his constituen s. Let them do these things or hold their fooHsh tongues and pens. In reply to this assertion, re.iterated without a syllable of proof, that Mr Buchanan has been a blind follower of Major Atkinson, facts give that the lie ; though he had berior have been that than the “ blind follower” of the sham liberal and astute lawyer Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G., who, proI fessing to care only for his country, • has, during the past three years taken, as figures prove, remarkably good care of himself; while as for his country—look at it! Did Mr Buchauau for instance blindly follow Major Atkinson when the latter desired the immediate construction of the Main Trunk Line, or the Cf >Uß * ;l ’ ut 'rion of the branch from Stratford to Taranaki ? And when these people abuse Major Atkinson do they forget we owe it to him that the oppressive tariff proposed by the Vogel-Stout combination in 1885 was thrown out, that the recent iniquitous tariff was lolled amid the jeers of the country, and that it was the same leader who put a stay to the wild borrowing policy of Sir Julius Vogel which has reduced the credit of New Zealand to a bye-word in the money markets of the world ? Do these mud throwers forget these tin. .g£, or did they never learn them ? probably never learnt them, for their ignorance and impudence are alike monumental But, and here we come to the real grievance, Mr Buchanan “ has a nice rich patch where families as well as sheep should be growing.” Just so! And the same might be said of every settler in the Wairarapa who has put brains, money and labor into even a 50 acre section ; their laud might be made to 44 grow ” more families. What do the 4 Observers ’ and Mr Bunny mean by tliis ? If anything, that Mr Buchanan having honestly made money should be deprived of it. Laud uatioualisation and confiscation is then, we must suppose, Mr Bunny’s coming policy ! Let the settlers of the Wairarapa look to it!

■ Mr we are told, has “ not a hi large stake in land.” _ Precisely so ! tud he is therefore anxious to deprive those who have. Let the settlers, small and large, remember it. But Mr Bunny has something better than laud. “He has a living stake in the district.” His relatives! Tea, we, have met this “ argument ” before. He has, ho so stated in Wellington in’B4 (or we would not have dared to refer to his personal affairs) “ 12 children and about 40 grandchildren.” If this be reason why Mr Bunny should be returned for Wairarapa South every patriarchal rabbit whose grand-children in their thousands devastated the iand has stronger and larger claims. But Mr Buchanan is “ wanting in sympathy with the small settler and working man.” Of course ! and that is the reason that no one gives higher wages in the Wairarapa nor keeps his men longer.