CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1857, 25 July 1918, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—lt was with aff cling of dismay (?) that I read in your last issue a twaddle signed “One Who Knows" in an endeavour to attack me in the rear, as it were, by using a nom-de-plume. Poor brainy fellow, in his wisdom he has put his - own pot on, and informed the local representative of the Hospital Board —who was good enough to attend the meeting—-that it was he who prepared the trap, that was reported in the “Herald's” summary of that meeting, and as he failed to treat his visitor as a guest, I can quite understand why he was not man enough to admit his guilt, hut sat there and heard all his comrades indicted, more so as he lacks the courage to sign his name. Perhaps he sees the harm he has'done, and fears to let his fellow members know him. Anyhow, I will answer his questions as under, to educate him:—(l) I got my authority from (he report of the meeting, as published in the “Herald,” more so, as I said before, I, with others, invited Mr Hornblow to address that meeting on hospital affairs —not as a subject for amateur quacks to hold an inquest' on. (2) Who gave me authority to rash into .print, with what that marvel of intellect describes as the Branch’s private business. As he asks that question •twice, I answer are the affairs of the Hospital Board and Maternity Home the sole business of our Labour Party? If so, then we had no right to circulate petitions for the general public to sign, as according to “One Who Knows” it was not their business.

Really, I must have been under a wrong impression when I understood that one of Labour’s cries were “All for each, and each for all.” Yet. he would cut the majority of the masses out. I still maintain that if .Mrs Gill and Mr Robinson could have explained all that was,necessary we had no need to have asked Mr Hornblow, and as Mrs Gill attended as a member of the Hospital Board and as only that wiseacre “One Who Knows” knew Mrs Gill would be there, I, with others, object to anyone making the Labour Party’s meeting a laundry in which to wash the. dirty linen of a public meeting held at Palmerston North. In regard to his assertion that it was not safe to tell me everything, he further incriminates himself, because he appeared to ignore the rest of the Party, as they also did not know, lienee the Chairman’s action in declaring all present innocent of any trap. As “One Who Knows” makes utlcrances against me, 1 challenge him to prove anything against my record in Foxton or elsewhere as concerns the Labour movement. 1 know it worries him lo watch ’me move where he fears to tread. 1 really think he must watch me with envious eyes moving where he is despised, because I do not draw the class line, as a true Democrat owns no class, and had I not hunted (he hare with the vigour and openness that I have done I could have hid behind a bush, like “One Who Knows,” for there are skulking hounds in all packs. In conclusion, I am not afraid to sign my name, because I have no reason to be ashamed of the part I have taken for Labour locally, as anyone could inform him. Thanking you, Sir, —I am etc., E. G. MARTIN.

(To the Editor.) Sir. —I hove rend Mr E. 0. Marlin’s leller of Saturday's dale, and am a I a loss to understand why lie wrote it. On the t'aels as staled by himself, there is nothing for him either to explain or to apologise for. I am a member of the N.Z. Labour Early, and so is Mrs Gill; if both or either of ns should feel inclined to attend a meeting' of the Eoxton Branch at any time, we are entitled to do so without apology or explanation. On this occasion I heard casually, from a member of the Eoxton Branch, that Mr Hornblow was going to be present at the meeting to .speak' on the Maternity Home question, and knowing that he was opposed to the subject matter of the petition being circulated, I thought it would afford a fitting opportunity to have both sides of the question ventilated, and at my suggestion Mrs Gill came along. As it is an axiom of the Labour Party that its platform is always open fertile discussion of the pros and eons of every question of public interest, I cannot see why Mr Martin should either have-to explain or to apologise for the fact that the eon as well as the pro was present on this occasion.—l am ,etc., PERCY T. ROBINSON.

(To the Editor.) Sir. —In your columns some time ago I read a notification to the effect that all returned soldiers were entitled to £5 by applying to -the local Patriotic Society. In common justice to soldiers generally, I would like to know if it was really meant to apply to all returned men, or only some of them. My reason for asking is that I know of one man who has applied twice for same, and has not even had a reply vouchsafed him. I would also, in common with a large number of others, like to know if it is the intention of the Society to hoard the funds lip until after the war, as judging by the last balance-sheet, they have not been giving much away. I quite understand that the Society is not in a position to cast money about indiscriminately, but my contention is that the money was collected for a specific purpose, and I am of the opinion that it is up to them to treat all our brave lads the same, not

make fish of one and flesh of another. Five pounds is not very much to quibble about. Let ns give it to them, they have earned every penny of it. They have been prepared to give their lives for ns who are slaying at homo. Sir, lam not writing Avith the intention of criticising the Society, far be it from me any such intention. But .when a soldier applies for his just dues it is up to them to give it to him, or at least state their reasons for not doing so. Trusting this will he taken in fluspirit in which I am writing, and sincerely trusting that Iho funds will ho used as the many 'contributors intended thorn to he. —I am etc., FAIR PLAY.