To the Kditor.
Sir— I should like to point out to your correspondent "Esmerelda Thorne" that the testimony given by one of Mr. Dutton's employes, whose lines have evidently '.-'IIc i
to him in pleasant places, can be accepted only in so far as it applies to himself and his fellow workers on the Anlaby Estate. Because one man. by reason of his em- ployer's kindly disposition, finds ''suitable and not too arduous employment' and 'comfortable living' , does it follow that all men should trust themselves implicitly to the almost autocratic power of big land- holders, and deliver into the hands of a few their inherent right to a living? All men cannot be Mr. Dutton's employes. It would be interesting to hear the testi- monies of some of those who work for other landholders — of men with wives and families, who have received wages from 15 down to 7/6 a week as general hands or boundary riders. Were the land open to such as these, there would ha no escuse for their taking a miserable pittance; but as the circumstances a man with a wife and children dependent on him may not be too fastidious. It is so well known that: farmers, in proportion to their holdings, em- ploy more men than station owners, tha' / a comment upon the statement quoted by your correspondent is hardly necessary. As for farmers paying the ''lowest possible wages, while so many men are driven to accept anything they can get, through the present, one-sided condition of affairs, there will always be some who will take advan- tage of it; and I hope your correspondent will see that the farmers are not the only offenders. As a single taxer, I might he tempted here to utter some of the 'well worn platitudes' to which your correspon- dent refers, were it not that that the single tax proposition has been explained in your columns so recently— and so ably— by Mr A. T. Saunders. ani) 'Jr' kvelyN GOODE. Pctherton. Ilallclt, JiAiuary 24.