A REPLY TO THE N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2706, 11 March 1924, Page 3

A REPLY TO THE N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE

(To the Editor.)

(To the Editor.) yir.—The article published in your paper of Saturday, apparently contributed by the “N.Z. .Welfare .League," is so oue-sided and misleading that it calls for severe criticism, but 1 will deal with it as gently as possible, First of all this self-styled “Welfare League” condemns the British Labour Government before it is txied(whieh is un-British) and prophesies its downfall; obviously, with that League “the wish is father to the thought.” 1 don’t know who is the author of the article in question but it is evidently someone who does not understand the character and aims of the leader, Mi- Ramsay McDonald, the ablest and strongest leader the British Government has had since the days o£ Mi 4 Gladstone. McDonuid is a Scotchman, who will not be so easily discouraged as this so-called Welfare League imagines and hopes; he has won his position by hard work, inspired by the noblest of motives—tlie uplifting of humanity. Give Ramsay McDonald a chance, and he will win to his aid the best brains in the mother country, as Mr Seddon did in this new country, tor “right” must always prevail over “might,” even the might of the conservative party's big purse and power. But what is this self-styled “N.Z. Welfare League,” and what is its aim/ is it not after all the mouthpiece of the extreme Conservative party now in power in Hew Zealand, very wealthy men who are concerned about their* own personal welfare and the existence of their own eenservative government which protects their selhsh interests, and who fear that New Zealand will soon follow the example of the

Mother Country and elect a Liber-al-Labour Government which will follow the lead of Mr Seddon, and fight for ideals to uplift humanity that might perhaps encroach upon the personal luxury and selfishness of the wealthy members of this precious “Welfare League” and its conservative friends now in power. This country does not need a selfstyled “Welfare League” of that calibre. Wjhat it does need is a better kind of welfare league, which will help to carry out, in a constitutional manner, the tine ideals of Labour, advocated by the Liberal-Labour party; and which will mean, not the welfare of a few wealthy conservatives only, but the welfare of all the people in the Dominion, whatever their class or creed. In a word, the aim of the extreme Conservative party now in office is “selfishness.’-’ On the other hand, the aim of the Liberal-Lab-our Party is “Humanity.” Which is the nobler aim? Further comment is needless. —I am, etc., P. L. HOLLINGS.