Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2800, 21 October 1924, Page 3

(To The- Editor.) Sir, —In your report of the last meeting of the Chamber of Commerce I notice that the President drew ~ the members’ attention to an attack that had been made on the Secretary of that body genius by a correspondent and also that the statements made were contrary to Fact. Now, sir, let me put the plain Fact * before the public,, and let them judge whose statements are contrary to fact and also what constitutes an attack. It must he remembered that Mr McMurray attacked the Mayor and Cr. Thompson as officials of the P»orough, elected by the people. Very well, as a private citizen, I replied to Mr McMurray, but forgot to get permission from the President of the Chamber of Commerce to do so. T si ill say that Palmerston V. does not need that deviation, Mr McMurray and the President; oF thg Chamber notwithstanding. Foxton is the natural distributing centre for this coast and with the Levin-Gjceat-Ford Railway through would do parochial Palmerston N. no harm, but would relieve its congestion (or is if indigestion, caused through trying to swallow ton much of the map?). Now for my main point: Mr McMnrray upheld the Palmerston N. scheme. I wrote against it; the Chamber of Commerce sent some of its members, to Welington to put the local interests and views before the Ministers. I see eye to eye with thl> deputation, yet the President says my letter was contrary to fact. Could anythin." be more stupid? I say, right here that there was and are still those on the Chamber who put Palmerston N. first and Foxton second, because they represent Palmerston N. firms locally. Instead of patting their Secretary on the hack and sharing his grief because I dared to at lack his attitude on the main question, the Chamber should •have publicly- answered his letter, as it was. a direr-1 negative to the views (lie deputation expressed to ••■the-Ministers in Wellington. Whose , statement? were contrary to fact — Mr McMurray's for the Palmerston N. scheme or mine for the Levin - . Great Ford deviation, which is practically the same a? (he deputation put before the Ministers in Wellington? Answer that question, Mr President. if! you can. T go further, and say that both the President and Secretary should have no voice on the question as they represent Palmerston N. firms locally, and have also to represent- Palmerston Is. views thereby. Further, did Mr MeMnrray’s letter to Ihe Press appear in his official capacity as Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce? TF not, Why was it condoned by the. Chamber? As for n'ttackine - Mr Me.Murray, hisi'le.tter was-of a controversial nature, and anyone had a right to reply to same, even without the sanction of the President. It is easily seen., that Palmerston N. lias influence in' the local Chamber of Commerce, which, is to be very much regretted, ; Tmoye that the Borough Council express its sympathy with the Mayor arid those Councillors who were attacked officially by Mr McMurray in the first place and myself in the second; it would only be following the lead of the Council of the Chamber of Commerce. Where is the Chamber on this question? Is it for or against? It upholds its Secretary, therefore they don’t, know where they are. Are they being led by Palmerston N. influence, as appears to be the case, judging by Mr McMurray’s support to the Palmerston .N. deviation. In conclusion, I a,m willing to meet the Secretary and President publicly, they to stand by their'views,, and I by mine. Let the _ public judge who made statements contrary to fact. they do it? I was the correspondent' referred to, so here is'my challenge. Palmerston versus Foxton. Come on, Mr President! Thanking you, sir, — I am, etc. E. G. MARTIN.