CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 October 1924, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE LIBERALS AND MR. HUGHES. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. McKeown’s attempt to reply to the statement of Mr. Hughes at his creditors’ meeting is most unconvincing. All of the facts on which Mr. McKeoAvn relies are at least 15 years old, some older. Quite plainly, our esteemed correspondent lWes in the mists and traditions of a generation ago. ' What does it matter if the genial Dan some 15 or 20 years ago supported the Reform Party? Mr. McKeown’s suggestion that in so doing the said Dan Avas doing something wrong is ridiculous in the extreme.' What about prominent Liberals in e\ T ery part of the Empire? Are they not going over to the Tories in shoals ? What of Churchill, of Asquith, of Lloyd George? What of our OAvn Wilford? What about the pacts between the Liberals and Conservatives at this election in the Old Country? Would anyone think the worse of Mr. McKeoAvn if he, too, supported the Reform Party in the future? No.' one. Then Avhy throAv political jibes at Mr. Hughes? In this country Ave see the same process going on of a junction of the forces of Reform and Liberalism against the common enemy, Labour. And men “in the know” predict that a party called the- Nationalist Party, or some such catching name, comprised of Reformers and Liberals, will fight together in this country at the next election against the groAving forces of Labour. Where will Mr. McKeown. then he? Perish the thought that he Avould support the disruptive forces of Labour. Naturally he Avould he supporting his whilom political enemies. And no blame to him. To get down to a practical issue, I suggest that a subscription list be opened, or the hat passed round, to liquidate Mr. Hughes’ claim and clear the names of those Avhom Mr. McKeoAvn calls “true Liberals” from the stigma r.f repudiation.—l am. etc. A. DOOLEY. HaAA-era, October 17.