REFORM AND FUSION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20101, 3 December 1930, Page 15

REFORM AND FUSION.

. W FO T.pa Ce I again thank you. with an apology to "John W l T' a nd sav that no ono feels StraigW' bo ing able to use tW • ham , e fireek and French in my reW& sna . h _ i do. I regret it very # ask him to be merciful to respect. It ie not alto- «« in ta fa?"» d * am tryi " g f , to to overcome some of the ftcap* I had - k t0 the subject. T Stratht" says I entered the "John Stra g threatenings. I B* b the kind. If "John < id ."Wrill refer to my first letter SW "?,, „nt find a threat or a sugges- * threat Mr Coatcs had pub tion of a threat he gu B9 K S the e were the points of es ted that tlics the two Terence mponcy ?artieß ,; on your space) I asked what Wr£L£ean I asked that Mr Coatcs did /ClaTn to the people what he *?ta to mind- I «g ain f° int ° U Kt *« ItraiuM" that the first point "a'SiS ftere must be a return to ,aid ', ta Reform Government's policy ?J«erinfoff public borrowing." Not rf ffif Coate. Government's policy, fffnk the amount per head before Re- ™ came into power and showed it f °%R and that when they wont out fM !', « was £172. Realising that Iff -tT a ir%o Beforrn I took ' t „»r to and showed the ane"Ucr ae in the debt. I stopped at s££»« Eefom wcnt out of power then suggested that Had stopped at 1928 for some ulter.or «« He brought in the war, and SSSed that I had again wilfully ■Eld a statement from the Year jj 0M were incurred since 1914. That Ldd leave in the average reader 3 Id that the war had cost £139 milZ of this national debt. I quote from Se Badge* (page 13 1930) and find OTd er classification or the debt War '69783,525, leaving a balance ot tu/,599818. I could quote the millions of iurplnse» that have disappeared since Sir Joseph Ward left the National Cabjj,t "John Straight" would then quote that discharged soldiers had cost about eight millions. So I suggested m my previous letter that we could both go on juggling with the Year Book, quoting it correctly, but with such suggestions as "John Straight" used in connexion with the £139 millions statement. He now says, "You started it," and again suggests that I used the figures between certain periods that would suit my argument and left out psriods that told against me. I left out no period during Reform's term of office. .I gave each year from 1912, when Reform came into power, to 1925, when Reform went out of power. I never charged Ecform with borrowing too much money, I simply stated that there was no evidence of tapering off during Beform's term of office. But in the last paragraph in "John Straight's" latest letter he drops his playful mannerisms, and gets right down to business. He says: "I do not think the public will be misled. Ido think that they will believe with me that one of the main objectives of Socialists' po/iey is to drive the Reformer* and Liberals into one camp." He then indulges in a little cheap sneering', with the class war, etc., terms the labour Party the Socialists, etc., \ isn't want to disown the term tolist, but we are entitled to the IB Labour Party, just as the Conser-

ntires are entitled to the term Reform firtft and the Liberals to the term United Party. lam a Socialist, and Idieve we have tlie cure for the present etonomic troubles. But I also thought it would be tmfair to you, Mr Editor, top«t forward any of our "isms." I wasted to show what a sham this shamSgit was between the two Parties — Mmn and United. I toolc the seven poiata as laid down by Mr Coates, and uM that they should be elaborated siJ explained to the people. I still uk that they should be explained. I regret that I do not know who is Ming behind "John Straight," but I MB assure him that Mr Coates could tot join the Labour Party in seven minttei; that having joined through the tnteet channels, he would have to subBit himself to the rank and file of the labour movement; that he would be bfoad not by a platform made by himwlf, but by a platform made by the talc »nd file of the workers of this Dominion. . J believe this sham-fight between the two dominant Parties is tMtlng this country dear, and I say tt»t If there are only the seven points •l dlielosed between them, that should Mt keep them apart more than seven But the seven- points are •teer humbug.—Yours, etc.,

lE. J. HOWABD. 2nd, 1930. fM» correspondence may now cease.— Editor, The Press.]