Sir—Just a few words and I have done with your correspondent of syllogistic proclivities. I have not shifted ground nor given up any of my former arguments. I repeat that brute majority has always been in the wrong; that is, it has always decided in favor of selfishness as against justice. To give one example, I quote the referendum taken on the subject of whether compensation should be made to private teachers for having their means of living taken from them. On account of this selfishness it is necessary to maintain two legislative houses so that both parties may have the power to protect themselves, and thus to prevent unjust legislation. “Nabocklish” says, “The House of Assembly cannot, by itself, protect them (the masses) from any existing disability.” He further says that Y and Z “cannot be relieved of any disabilities except by the gracious permission of X, which is constantly refused.” Well, since the House of Assembly, elected by Adult Suffrage, has passed the laws we live under, how can any disability exist? Y and Z, being the majority, have always had control of the House of Assembly, so X never made any laws without the “gracious permission” of Y and Z. But now Y and Z, in their increasing selfishness, wish to take from his only protection, and so place” him under real disabilities. When they place X in the background where his voice cannot be heard, they can conveniently offer him £5 for his horse, and compel him to part with the animal. “Brian Boru” has brought forward no argument whatever, but has rather slandered those immortal patriots whose names he mentions, when he compared our proposed constitutional alterations of to-day to the sacred cause for which they fought and suffered. I thank you, Mr. Editor, for your space. This is my final reply, as life is too short to waste time answering anonymous correspondents, and refuting arguments that hold as much sound reasoning as a sieve holds water.
I am, &c.,
Mintaro Railway, October 20th.