LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1074, 13 March 1911, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

A VOTE ON THE GAMING BILL EXPLAINED. Sir,—One hardly looks to the report of a Police Court proceeding for an explanation as to why a member of Parliament voted for (he retention of the bookmaker. Strange to fay, however, such an opportunity was seized upon by Mr. T. M. Wilfurd, Ml'., in the recent case of Detective Hammond versus Henry Jackson. Jackson was charged with having been in "Willis Street on Pebruary 23 lor tho purpose of betting. Mr.' Wilford was counsel for tho accused, and the golden opportunity arose, for him to explain why he had voted against tho Bill. It arose in this way. Mr. Wilford asked Detectivo Hammond: "Are there as many as sixty bookmakers in Wellington?'' The reply of that astute officer was: "Yes, thero are more since the Act was passed." Thou Mr. Wilford "laid himself out" as follows:' "That proves what I have always contended, your Worship; drive them off the racecourse, and they come into the streets. That is why I voted against the Bill." Docs it not seem a peculiar place and occasion for a member of Parliament to make a political speech, or should I say an apology, to his constituents? When will occasion arise for his "three brethren," Messrs. Carroll, Millar, and Glover, to make the same apology, as they irero the only'members who voted to continue gambling through the medium of the bookmaker? Exception must be taken to Detectivo Hammond's statement that tho number of bookmakers had increased since the Act came into force. If so, it says very little for that officer and his colleagues, whose duty it is to now suppress the bookmaker. However,'l maintain that Detective Hammond is wrong, and that on tho occasion that ho mado that statement that there were not more than a dozen or so bookmakers in Wellington, if ho adheres to his statement, would ho obtain permission from the Commissioner of Police and name the sixty he referral to? It is well known that almost immediately the new Act came into force that thero was almost a completo exodus of tho gentry to Australia for pastures new. However, it gave Mr. Wilford an, opportunity, for apology and Detective Hammond to showhow an Act of Parliament, intended to suppress the bookmaker, has resulted in increasing-the-number of the fraternity. I wonder how many of the public and his colleagues will support this really amusing statement?—l am, etc., SPECTATOR. Willis Street, Wellington, March 11, 1911.

THE CONTROL OF HOSPITALS. Sir,—Allow me to congratulate Sir. Young and other members o£ the Waikato Hospital Board on the stand taken up at yesterday's meeting with reference to Dr. Vnlintine's methods. At the present moment matters relativo to th,e public health, and hospital departments, are in u very unsatisfactory, state, and it is simply amazing that any one man should have the power which is in the hands of the Inspector General. I allow the question of how promises are kept to pass, but when one man has the temerity !to stand and publicly say what ho will and will not allow to be done on such a question, it is time that one man had his powers defined. Admittedly the head of two Departments mentioned has a bis; field, but in tho present case it hardly ;sepms big enough. In conclusion I trust that members of the AVaikato HospitalBoard and all other boards, will in future remember the present unfortunate experience, and carefully watch the movc:ments of the Inspector General of Hospitals.—l am, etc., WILLIAM TELL. Hamilton, March 10.

"A ONE-EYED DEPARTMENT." Sir,—l was rather surprised, and at the samo time amused, to read in your .last issue that Mr. M'Laren, M.P., had issued a manifesto urging "Labour" to organise for the coming elections. I have since perused that manifesto, ami am entirely in accord with your opinion to ■ the effect'that instead of furthering the cause of Labour, it will provoko tho ridicule of its best friends. If Mr. M'Laren sets himself up aa a Labour man, and tho typo that should be returned to prevent the "fat man from becoming even more aggressive," then I say to tho workers, as one of themselves: Better for us to return tho "fat man," because then we know ■ what to expect. Before Mr. M'Laren should dictate to the workers as to what they should do, he sh6uld reflect on his past actions as a "Labour" man. It will be remembered that during last session Mr. Wilford, M.P.. (one of tho oldest members of the present political party in power) attacked the Labour Department tor its treatment of the workers throughout tho Dominion. It will be also remembered that it was Mr. M'Laren, Labour M.P., who defended tho employers on that occasion, by stating in the House that there was no general outcry against tho Labour Department. Will Mr. M'Laren (per means of. a manifesto if he likes) still defend the Labour .Department, in view of the two following paragraphs taken from recent issues of tho "Weekly Herald," tho official organ of Labour?

"A One-eyed Department.—'Pious resolutions,' some of tho street-corner blatherskites call this sort of agitation. Unfortunately, thoso of us who honestly strive to have the Labour laws properly administered know the effect of these manufactured indignations. AVith a Labour Department that has its eye on tho political fate of its chief, with a Ministor that has his eyo on the commercial class vote, thoro is a very big chance of evasions of tho law being winked at. Some of our Labour laws, are now used exclusively for the delectation of touring journalists. _To ask the Department to take action in cases of breach is almost an affront. "Whenever the employers begin to pass a resolution along from meetin? to meeting, it is invariably'a prelude to 'seeing breaches with a blind eye.'"

"Auckland unions appear to find it as difficult to move tte Labour Department to action as the AYellington unions. Even ill eases where absolute proof pf breaches has- been produced, tho inspectors ask that the matter bo allowed "to drop, as the employers have promised—tho usual promise, 'Wo won't do it again—until wo aro found out.'"

If ho is not prepared to'defend tho Department, then what of his statements in the House as a representative of Labour? Should ho not, therefore, refrain from issuing any further manifestoes and from posing ns a Labour leader? Trusting you will insert this.—l am, etc., DAN. MORIAETT. Wellington, March 13.