IN DEFENCE OF MR. HINDMARSH.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1924, 5 December 1913, Page 9

IN DEFENCE OF MR. HINDMARSH.

Sir, —Tn your lending article of December 3 you use tl:o following words concerning Mr. A. 11. Hindmar'sli, tlio member for Wellington South: "Of Mr. Hindinarsh not very much in the way of "stability is expected." Tito subject matter of your sub-leader in which those words arc used was one dcnling with picketing by trades unions. .Mr; Hiiidniarsli simply urged thai the law allow of peaceful' picketin;-;, the same as allowed by the English lav. Mr. Himlmarsh is a Labour candidate, and be, would indeed bo lacking in stability if iio had supported anything else..

Mr. IXindruarsh showed his . stability when lie moved (and carried on the, voices) the amendment to the Shipping Act, which did away with the iegal bar to the. light of action against shipping companies in cases of'negligence. i our consistcncy-tho-rcf UEje-ol'-fools II mister Fisher did his best "to cover and .protect the monopolists, but the democratic champion, Mr. 1-iindmarsli, carried the amendment in suite of all. Hut, 1 suppose, according to 'tm: Dominion, those who support Labour arc. lacking in stability, but the men who support the unrighteous claims of monopolists and employers from immunity of action for nesjiigenco are persons of iron will and stability even if they have tinned about face oil the land and several other questions. Sir. Himlmarsh was sent to Parliament to fight land and other monopolies, and this I claim he has done consistently and with "stability." His speeches on the land question and all other matters show him to bo a man of "stability." If not, J. would bo glad, Air. Editor, if you. would give, some particulars to justify your statemerit. Any sort of a man can sit in a chair and write sweeping untruthful statements—it is details wo want. Then wo can verify or otherwise.—! am. etc . ' STABIL.ITI'. '