Rerietc of Rtvieus, IJll/oe. 



eorrespondence. 



559 



660 



500 

 390 



dates as if they were all but one person. Here is an 

 imaginary case to show my proposition: — 



Smith, Freetrader 500 Protectionist 



Brown, Protectionist ... 400 



Jones, Labour 390 Freetrader... 



Robinson, Protectionist ... 260 Labour 



This election shows that the Protectionists polled 

 660 rotes, and that IVIi'. Brown is the man the elec- 

 tors, by a majority, have chosen. Thus every voter has 

 shown power to the same degree, and the party in 

 the majority win the election, and the most popular 

 candidate is also returned. In such a case the Pro- 

 tectionists would merely cross out the names of Smith 

 and Jones, leaving the names of the two candi- 

 dates being of the same political opinions, and the 

 most popular man would be sure to come out on top. 

 All the electors would not use their privilege, as per- 

 sonal prejudice is often rampant at such times ; but 

 the public would in nearly all cases choose the most 

 popular candidate. For the want of such a system at 

 the last Federal election several good men lost their 

 election. It appears paradoxical that to • elect one 

 member an elector should leave two or more names on 

 his paper, but he is entitled to vote for those who 

 uphold his principles as well as the man who is fortu- 

 nate enough to have but one candidate to support, 

 and it is perfectly fair to each party to vote their 

 fidl strength for the cause they espouse. If, as is 

 the ca.se as before, only one-half the voters had polled 

 for both Protectionist candidates. Brown would have 

 to his credit 790 votes. This plan is perfectly equit- 

 able, and can be worked in so simple a way that there 

 would be few mistakes made, as all a voter would 

 have to do would be to cross out those names that he 

 considered were opposed to his principles, and leave 

 those of his friends. 



VEGETARIANISM. 



Mr. Percy R. Meggy writes: — 



I wish to thank you for allowing " Vegetarian '' 

 to bring forward in your widely-circulated magazine 

 one of the greatest questions of the day, into the 

 advocacy of which I would gladly throw myself heart 

 and soul, if there were not another question more 

 important even than that. In a couple of pages 

 your correspondent has brought together some most 

 valuable evidence from leading scientists, showing 

 that man is not naturally a meat eater, but a vege- 

 tarian, as is abundantly proved by his close physical 

 similarity with the ape, and that a vegetarian diet, 

 by which I mean substitution of pidse foods for meat, 

 is far more nutritious and beneficial in every way 

 than meat. He has also shown wliat I can corro- 

 borate from my own experience, that a man can do 

 far more mental and even physical work on a pulse 

 and fruit diet than he possibly could on a meat one, 

 and he might have added what is equally important, 

 that in nine cases out of ten a vegetarian would be 

 easily able to resist the temptation to smoke or 

 drink. Knowing these facts as many of us do, what 

 is the plain duty of the man who has a conscience, 

 and tries to obey the promptings of his higher .self!' 



Is it not to do all he can, first by example, and 

 then by precept, to spread this knowledge among: 

 others, and to inculcate the great doctrine of mercy 

 to the helpless dumb creatures whose pitiful appeal 

 for protection we answer with a knife and nameless 

 cruelties in the train and ship? For my own part, I 

 would scorn to gratify my palate by the death agonies 

 of a living creature, so long as I could satisfy my 

 hunger on the far more nutritious products of the 

 vegetable world. 



AVe have been so accustomed to hear animals 

 spoken of with contempt, as if man only had a 

 soul, and the other members of creation had none, 

 that most of us believe it ; but it is the narrowest of 

 church-taught doctrines, and utterly contemptible 

 beside the grand conception so familiar in the East 

 that all life — whether of flesh, fish, or fowl — comes 

 from the Supreme, and is journeying on through 

 countless lives, gathering a rich harvest of experi- 

 ence on its way -back to its source, and the shorter 

 our sojourn in this present place the longer will be 

 our path towards our destined goal. For these 

 reasons I should rejoice to hear of the extension of 

 the great vegetarian movement in Australia, where 

 a marked increase in sympathy for the inferior races 

 is very much requiied. 



LAND MONOPOLY AND THE SINGLE TAX. 



yiv. Percy R. Meggy writes to say that he has 

 been prevented by pressure of work from answering 

 the attack made by Mr. J. Miles Verrall. N.Z.. in 

 tlie October number of the " Review of Reviews " on 

 the Single Tax principles advocated by Mr. Meggy 

 in his article on " Land Monopoly in Tasmania," 

 published in the June numlier. but he will do so in 

 a future issue. 



A subscriber asks us to publish Ernest Crosby's in 

 spiring lines on "Life and Death." 



LIFE AND DEATH. 



So he died for his faith. That is fine — 



More than most of us do. 

 But, say, can you add to that line 



That he lived for it, too." 

 In his death he bore witness at last 



As a martyr to truth. 

 Did his life do the same in the past 



From the days of his youth? 

 It is easy to die! Men have died 



For a wish or a whim — 

 I'roni bravado, or passion, or pride, 



AVas it harder for him !•" 

 But to live — every day to live out 



.\11 the truth that he dreamt, 

 Wliile his friends met his conduct with doubt, 



.\nd the world with contempt. 

 Was it thus that he plodded ahead, 



Never turning aside? 

 Then we'll talk of the life that he lived, 



Never mind how he died. 



