IN EXPLANATION.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1932, Page 2

IN EXPLANATION.

(To the Editor). your i: me of the 21st April you publish a .sob leader containing grave nds-staun ents of facts, and while I recognise your hostility politically, I had thought that it would not •be necessary for you to .seize the opportunity of the eorrreciion of a garbled (Press message of what Mr Barnard M.P. and myself .said at our meetings in the Wairarapa to launch at attack on me personally. ’‘Looking back" as vou state in your article, 1 have always had the hostih tv of the ‘’Guardian” •during elect io: s, hut between times your papei’ wa- usually fair ctiough to give me credit for work done. However, ■I wish to call your attention to one glaring inaccuracy in tile article in 'question. In the first place you, alluding to myself, state : ‘Tie was addressing an unemployed rally and no doubt thought he had a receptive audience, but .when wider publicity was given to his utterances ,he makes the complaint that he was misreported.” It might (interest you to know, Mr Editor, that the meetings addressed by Mr Barnard and myso'i were not unemployed rnlli's, huh meetings convened 'by the Labour Party. And aiso that the meetings were well attended by men of all shades of political opinions, and our criticism of the existing order of things was well received by our opponents, whom I consider would be faih-minded enough to contradict the obviously coloured message of the Press Association agetft. H

may interest y.>" to know that no mention of repudiation in the reports of our speeches iw the two (Wairarapa papers, which under the circumstances gave us a fair report. In that I am not including a si.'lv "local ill one of :hem. Your article seems to me to be (intended to make Westland people believe th’.f T am afraid to sav jn other pert? of the Dominion what. I say in Westland, but. you should know me well enough bv fur time to know that -fiat is far from true. It is true what I said in Wairarapa was said before Wetland audiences, but in the Wain rap- I included criticism of the legislation then before the House of Parliament-wages and pension reductions. I also pointed out the iniquity of forcing us to make P»yprehts in kind to the bondhu.ders of

from three to four times as much interest as we paid when we borrowed the money—a time of inflation. As to the period when Great Britain was unable to pay the interest on her debt to America, I have explained that from every platform I spoke from in Westland, but will be pleased to do so errain. Alicl the fact that Mr Stanley

Baldwin and Mr Montague Norman bad to proceed to America lo make arrangements for interest reductions of 2\ pci cenk. on the war loan should b ( .> sufficient to enlighten you on the position of our dealings with America. Might 1 add that if the 'Mother country handed on to us the .same concession as she received from America there would bo no need to cut the already inadequate pensions of our aged, soldiers, widows and orphans. In your article you state: “To lower the interest on the public debt at Home is an act of repudiation.” My reply is io pay the same rate of iutmost at a tune of deflation on money borrowed at a 'time of inflation is unjust. And further T would ask how much of the money we borrowed was savings, and how much was nitre inflation? And what was it lhat brought such strong criticism from those fearless publications, ‘‘The Nation," “Stead's Review,” and the “'Overseas Magazine?” Alluding to one of. the thousand million loans “Stead s RevLw” stated “a. huge proportion of this money was mere inflation and represented no real savings.” Another •transaction was •alluded to by the “Overseas Magazine’ as "the most wonderful tale of grand larceny in the world's • history. Writing of th'f conversion of all previous 2.J. 3$ nnd 4* j per cent, loans into one winch would j bring in s', per cent., “Steads Review stateil "That ""'""s fhot the Government will have to pay file stockholders another £10,000,000 more per year additional blond money upon old loans.” I„ .spit.,» of all this, Sir, you demand we ,shall! keep up these interest payments during our period of deflation and con,sT, |U"ilt depression. I, "ii the of.liei },: contend that to demand payment, on these term-' is th'ie'".-ry. and we have

n (> right to pay more than j"st interest, and tint': only <m • he actual money m savings borrowed. T" '• seems remarkable that the “Guardian.” with its fine old 'Liberal D'"<'>t'o.,s should put the bond h'-plers' before our social services, ami the pensions ot our pj,,„p. | b<' orphan, the widow, and the .soldier and his dependents. 1 would suggiG. Mr Kditor. Unit you

write an arl'ieie justifying the ''litLing down of the pensions. In « : on,-|"Sioi) 1 wish to stale I am prepared to take

the platform against yourself, or anyone you nominate in Hokitika, and 'leave jt :o the audience whether 1 s.and for repudiation or justice. 1 am, etc., JAS. O'BRIEN. Wellington, 26/4/31. jMr O'Brien is still an advocate for repudiation, ibis can be left tor the electors to conjure over.— lid. (J.