Mr. Lawry (Parnell)

says that the verdict of public opinion has denounced the Stage System "over and over again," and mentions the result of various election contests in support of his contention. As to the Waikato contests, all the older residents in that district know that Mr. J. B. White had to retire from his seat owing to his hostility to the Stage System. Then as to the contest between Mr. Thompson and myself. Mr. Thompson was declared to have won by 35 votes. 36 votes were thrown out, said to be informal, but which, when too late, I discovered were never examined by the returning officer. I also found out that 50 of my votes were stolen after they had passed through the ballot-box. Some of these are still in the hands of a legal firm, awaiting a "falling-out of thieves." I am extremely obliged to Mr. Frank Lawry for giving me this opportunity of throwing a little light on that piece of electioneering rascality. At any rate, it is quite certain that Mr. Thompson would have lost his seat by an overwhelming majority, had he not in the strongest manner pledged himself to support the Stage System. This I gratefully acknowledge he did, until he became a Minister.

As to the Parnell contest, that was not a contest between Mr. Lawry and myself, but between Mr. Lawry, Mr. Withy-who received the support of the Temperance Alliance, the Socialists, and the Single Taxers—and myself. I did not intend to contest any seat, and had refused to allow myself to be nominated for two. The Parnell electors were in a disagreeable position; they had to choose between Mr. Lawry and a young Socialist-Single-Taxer, and most of them hated both. Two men they relied on failed them, and strong pressure was then brought to bear to induce me to step into the gap.

I was announced as a candidate on the 14th of November, and the polling took place 011 the 4th of December. Thus I had only 17 days in which to fight a triangular contest. Had I had another 17 days, Mr. Frank Lawry's place in Parliament would have known him no more. His statement that this contest was fought "on that one particular fad of his" is absolutely untrue. I gave in all 14 addresses, and in not one of them did I attempt to deal with the railway question. Many people think that I lost the seat in consequence I feel that it is quite derogatory to have to speak of these election matters, but, as the same argument has before been used against the Stage System, have thought it well to show what Mr. Lawry's statements are worth.

Mr. Lawry's silly talk about inducing people to travel when they do not require to do so is not worth replying to. It is on a par with the argument freely used when I was a boy, that the "common people" ought not to be taught to read, because, if they were, they would be sure to read bad books. Nice argument for a "Liberal "M.H.R.! Mr. Lawry evidently does not think page 13 his constituents fit to be trusted with a railway ticket, for fear they should play truant and use it wrongly.

Mr. Lawry asks why the Railway Companies of America have not adopted the new system. It is a sufficient reply to point out that in all the countries where it has been adopted, the Governments have found it necessary to buy out the companies, as both the United States and the United Kingdom will most certainly have to do.