WARD AND EARNSHAW IN CONFLICT.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 14 December 1901, Page 4

WARD AND EARNSHAW IN CONFLICT.

Decidedly Guilty Communications,

(Special to “Star.’’)

Dunedin, This Day.

Replying to Sir Joseph Ward’s letter published yesterday, Mr W. Earnshaw says:—“ There is no necessity for Departmental heads to enter into the inquiry of religious views of applicants, and to ask and inquire of the heads of Departments of the truth of the charge, would indeed be laughable were the situation less grave. The plain unvarnished truth is that the religious qualifications of persons are known before application, and their employment is determined before such application is made. I charge Sir Joseph and his associates with deliber,. ately stuffing the services of workshops, railway department, railway sheds, post and telegraph departments, and the whole service generally with Roman Catholics. On a former occasion I denounced the Government of which Sir Joseph Ward was a member of, for gross misuse of the Post and Telegraph Departments, I challenged the Sir Joseph-Oum-Seddon administration in my place in Parliament in plain set terms, with gross personal misuse of the Telegraph Department. Further than a sequel from Sir Joseph calling upon the House to compel me to disclose the sources of my information the Government refused to take action,'refused to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry as to my public allegations and which reflected upon their personal honor. I stand by every statement which I have made and I will at the proper time, and before an honestly constituted tribunal prove to the hilt, much more and graver issues than I have at present dealt with. No evasions, quips, or taunts of raising religious feelings will have the slightest weight with a public conscience aroused to a sense of public menace and certainly will not have any influence on my course of action. I charge Government with a gross misuse of public service. I challenge the Government to meet the issue by a properly consjituted tribunal and not by way of an evasive letter through the channels of a willing deputy.”

i souble in the Liberal camp.

Trouble is brewing over the way iu which the Workers’ Political Committee selected its candidate for Oaversham. Messrs Taverner and Stewart, two of the defeated candidates, have kicked over the traces. It appears the Workers’ Political Committee was asked to extend the time for nominations, to allow unaffiliated Unions to join, and take part, but it decided that time did not permit of any varying of the arrangements already made. “Now this is a sore point,’’ writes Messrs Taverner and Stewart, “and one we wsh to emphasise. Although the meeting was called for the special purpose of making a selection, in consequence of that, three members of the Committee, who were candidates, were excluded from that meeting. Ordinary business was taken, and dealt with, and while these three members, Rhodda, Stewart, and Taverner, were practically disfranchised, three Unions were allowed to affiliate. Unfortunately for appearances, all the newly affiliated Unions voted in favor of the successful candidate, giving him twelve extra votes, without which he would not have won. As we are not responsible to Mr Hally, the successful candidate, for any pledge given, we intend, after this breach of confidence on the part of the Workers’ Political Committee, to reserve to ourselves the right to act in any way we think fit, as we do not deem ourselves, after their action, as being bound by any pledge given to them.” Mr Warren, too, is very sore on the point, and declares that Mr Hally, who is a Roman Catholic, could no more support a free and secular system of education than ho could fly. He must either be false to his Church or to his platform. From all appearances, the election is going to resolve itself into a religious fight.