AN OPEN LETTER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1094, 16 January 1912, Page 3

AN OPEN LETTER.

To Mr Edward Tiegear.

Dear Sir,—-I have to thank you for your reply to my letter of tbe 23rd ultimo. I will deal with your statements seriatim, and will, as before, commence by quoting your own words in your letter under reply: “Whether the electors of Otaki have helped to drive the moneychangers from the Temple of Justice by sending a supporter of Mr Massey to Parliament remains to be seen. . . . That is only one man’s opinion, of course.” And right there I join issue with you. The portion of your letter printed in italics (which are ours) is more than “one man’s opinion.” It is, to be exact, one man’s misstatement (possibly intentional, probably not), but equally dangerous in either case when acted upon so* near the second ballot. Robertson, in opening his campaign at his first meeting in Tokomaru, took up a definite stand as. to his position regarding the two parties. “ I will vote against tbe Ward Government on a vote of no-confidence, but bear in mind that does not mean that lam going to support the Opposition. With Mr Massey in power I will vote against the Massey Government on a vote of no-confidence.” This statement was reiterated at every meeting throughout the fight, and was emphasised by means of letters to the local press in addition to such reiteration. I claim that it is the only logical position for a Eabour man to take up. Am trafficking with either party on the basis of “support in exchange for policy measures” simply means the sale of a member’s vote —and I submit that the man who will at the commencement of his Parliamentary career deliberately barter his vote tor the benefit of his supporters is very liable, at a later date in his career, to make a straight-out sale of his support to benefit himself, “A plague on both your parties” was the emphatic way in which Robertson cbrystallised the situation at o.lc iujeung, and it was a way wbLb m t (and meets) with the hearty support ot quite a number of people in this electorate.

I hold no brief for Toryism any more than you do. But I go a Step further than you ; my detestation of Toryism is without distinction. 1 detest it equally in Ward and in Massey'. Pet me ! again quote your letter under reply ; “I see among them the men I who fought .... unchang- • ing against the Arbitration Act, | Compensation Act, the Shearers , Accommodation Act.” I also, Mr ~ Tregear, see such men amongst them, but I, thank heaven, have no blind eye lor the Government benches, where I also see men, Cabinet Ministers, who by their entire apathy where these Acts were concerned, by their broken promises to the workers and to their fellow members, fought against these Acts much more effectively than did the old Tory . Party. Ask Mr William Pryor, • Secretary of the Employers’ Federation, whether he would rather have the futile fighting of the Opposition against these Acts or the tacit acquiesence (bolstered by repeatedly made and .broken promises) of the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward and the Hon. J. A. Millar, Minister for labour, to the system of Award breaking by ‘‘contracts for labour only.” In the early part of 1909 Mr Millar admitted that Mr Pryor's system nullified and got behind all these Acts, and promised four of us during the afternoon recess that a short bill amending the matter ( would be passed *‘ that session, if 1 possible.” The amending bill, f despite that promise (which was subsequently reiterated and confirmed by Sir Joseph Ward) has never yet been passed, and the Acts you mention are at the present moment entirely at the mercy of that eminently "liberal” ally of the Government,

The Employers’ Federation of • New Zealand ! Could the Oppo- • *®®sition have achieved as big a gain

„ . for Toryism as that after a decade of fighting ? There was no need .■f;- for Mr Herdman to “let out ” that he was in favour of abolishing the ‘ Arbitration ‘ Act! Ward and 1 Millar had gone one better ; they ’ had left the workers tied hand and

foot by the Act, and had refused •»* to close the convenient back door opened by Mr Wm, Pryor. . You say you did not use your influence against our candidate ! V Did you imagine that your tele-

gram would assist him in the fight? You deny bolstering the ij. 4 of “ Bung,” and, clothing yourself in .Prohibition as in a . . garment, point to your advocacy Prohibition as suffiIcient refutation ! Did you not know that Field was a three-fifths man, whereas our candidate was a bare majority supporter ? I ask • y°u> as man to man, when you that wire to Field reading . . ‘ Eet the electors know that ■Robertson has no connection with the N.Z. Labour Party,” whose •candidature did you think it would benefit? Quit quibbling and abusing either Party, and give me a straight-out answer to that ' •'f claim that it was absolutely neutral, and the only excuse that could be offered ior it would be that it was in response to a statement that Robertson had claimed your Party’s support. Was such a statement ever made to you ? You welcome Robertson as a - Socialist! Xfie man to whom you sent your telegram swamped the electorate with misleading pamphlets regarding Robertson’s alleged pledge to the Socialist Party, and read them at the same meeting , at which he read your wire ! You greet Robertson as a friend 1

Never before did I realise so completely the truth of the adage, “ Preserve me from my friends.” The facts remain as stated in my first letter. Your wire helped Field’s candidature ; that candidature was championed by the “ pubs,” by the Ward Administration, and by the Catholic Church, ergo in helping him you (intentionally or unintentionally) allied yourselt with that combination. Whether such an alliance is desirable I leave to your own taste in the matter of company. I conclude by repealing my question, who did you think your telegram would benefit when you despatched itf—l am, dear sir, Yours faithfully, Percy T. Robinson, Secretary.