RICCARTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND THE STRIKE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14841, 5 December 1913, Page 8

RICCARTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND THE STRIKE.

-O THE EDITOR OF '"THE PRESS." _, kjr'""^!. ll . to your correspondent , ,'" to » * n - 16 nrst l?hice 1 hasten to apologise to Crs. White aud Dempster for suiting in my letter ihat theso gentlemen were employees of tho -ovcrauient. Cr. Wiuco lias now removed the impression that myself and juany other ratepayers wero under that the four opposition councillors were Government employees. Of course wo knew that the chairman of the Works Committee, Cr. Waddell, was not a Government employee. fcorry 1 made the mistake. Now, Sir, Cr. Whit© says that -Ratepayer" is sure tho ratepayers will congratulate the Mayor and Crs. Helliweil. Ford, and Georgo on their action (or, as Cr. White puts it, "inaction"). If Cr. White will read tho Press reports carefully he will find that the Prime Minister (Mr Massey) did all it was possible for a man to do to bring about a peaceful settlement of this deplorable striko which is doing no one any good, and every richt-thinking man was, and is, sorry it was not settled, but that was not any fault on Mr Massey's part. Now, "when Cr. White talks about rushing into print over the first Council donating £15, as ho says for entertaining the officers of the Dreadnought, I will ask him—ls he sure it was voted for that purpose? Anyway, that he is missing the point is evident. What on earth has that got to do with the action of the present Council in passing a motion condemning the GovernmentP And, by the way, this is tho only Council that has been reported to have passed such a motion. I notice several other local bodies have carried motions of appreciation of the Government's attitude. I am sorry that your reporter at the Council meoting did not report tho speeches made by every councillor on this question. It* would hnve been very interesting reading matter, and I have no donbt an education" ■to the ratepayers. I venture to predict that when the next election comes round thero will be change. I would liko to ask Cr. White and his four Colleagues what conditions thoy wanted to impose on tho Council's driver who went on striko for one day, if he was to be reinstated to his work again?— Yours, etc., RATEPAYER. Riccarton, December 4th, 1913. . TO t__ editor op "the press." Sir, —Please allow m© space to reply to a iottor on the above subject signed by G. D. White, appearing in your issue of to-day. In my'opinion I think it was downright impertinence on the part of Messrs Stokes and . Foster (Government employees) to support a resolution criticising the action of the Government over the industrial dispute. The special permission to stand for election was granted to them to enable them to become useful citizens, and by their recent action they havo abused the privilege, and therefor© when the next election comes round th© Government in power will be perfectly justified in refusing to grant the special permission.—Yours, etc., RATEPAYER No. 2. St. Albans, December 3rd. . to thb snrroß op "the press." Sir, —I crave.a few lines to reply to Councillor White, who in your issue of the 3rd inst. proceeds by evasion to cover up a very bad blunder into which he lead his fellow Red Federation Councillors. He talks about £15 voted to entertain the men of the Dreadnought. What on earth has that got to do with the strike? Nothing I This is only dust to cover up sins. Mr White says the Council passed a motion deploring the attitude of the Government in allowing the present industrial crisis to go on without moving in tho direction of obtaining a just and equitable settlement. This was not the motion, and Cr. White knows this well, but he is only fencing to hide his blunder. The motion was that the Council deplores; th© action of the Government in the present industrial dispute, also urges immediate legislation to terminate the dispute on a just and equitable basis. Anyone comparing th© words .of the motion with the yarn published by Cr. White will see that there is a vast difference. The Council deplores th© action of the Government. Very well then; what was tho action or attitude of the Government when this strike.occurred, with its accompanying mob law? Tho Government did what was its duty—got the assistance of /'specials" to protect citizens and property. I understand that at the discussion at the Council meeting the "specials" came in for the wrath, of labour members, and anyone with a grain of reasoning can see that after reading the motion that this Council deplored the Government for maintaining law and order. I suggest that at next meeting this Council carry a motion' that mob law is now in force, and "specials" and ordinary police can be shot at sight. Can any right-minded citizen understand a Council deploring the action of a Government in tho maintaining of law and order? I understand that Cr. White was asked to alter his motion with a view of unanimous support, to read: —"That this Council deplores the present industrial crisis," etc., but he would not entertain any such alteration. He was.out to "deplore the Government," etc. I have something to deplore now, that is, that I voted for Cr. White at last election—never again. As for Cr. W T addell supporting such a motion, well, I would like to hear what ho has to say in defence of his attitude. I hope when.Cr. White next appears in print he will be more candid, and state things as they are, not as perhaps he would like them to be after he had seen the error of his ways. He tries to qualify his motion,, as I mention above, and then says that certain councillors voted against it. What was voted against was the motion I mention above, and anyone can see that it re- \ fers to the question of maintaining law and order and protecting persons and property from mob law of a mob of strikers such as, for instance, Wellington and Auckland. —Yours, etc., RICCARTON PROPERTY OWNER.