TO THE EDITOR

Opotiki News, Volume I, Issue 97, 14 October 1938, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR

attendance at meeting Dear Sir, —In reply to Mr. ±i. JBaigent’s letter Winch appeared iu your paper on the 1-th. inst. 1 desire to .state that 1 did not eonnt-the numher of those present at the Waima Freezing Works meeting on the 21st. September. 1 preferred to aeeept the estimate of the chairman, Mr, I’. Bigaieil, tvlio has eincq >vired me as follows :—• “With reference to your meeting field Waima. Barracks Tokomaru Bay 21st. September reported in I’ress as dU being present I definitely state that actual number was 83. Sullivan'S meeting following week 2-j present.’ My meetings right throughout the campaign have been better attended than any L have ever addressed previously. A paid organiser has not accompanied me on my tour. Ihe only person organising for me on a fulltime basis is Mr. G. It. A. Whiting, -who is working in an honorary capacity. receiving no payment whatsoever iu the shape of wages, only his hotel accommodation expenses, and travelling expenses being met out of campaign funds- The lady secretary to whom Mir. Baigont refers is a typiste "who has been assisting me to handle the hundred odd letters which i have liad on the average per day since the beginning of last session. Perhaps Mr. Baigent will accept the Bay of Plenty Press report of my Whakatane meeting ,which states that it was the largest held in Wliakataue s history, there being (550 present, almost twice as many as my opponent addressed recently in tlie King Street Hall.

L have nothing further to say on the question except that the campaign lias been a most enjoyable one, and I am confident of an overwhelming victory at the poll to-morrow. Kindest regards to all, A. G. HUJ/TQUIST. MR. HULTQUIST’S ALLEGATIONS Sir, —At a public meeting in the Begent Theatre, Wliakataue, Mr. Hultquist stood on the platform and as good as told a. large audience that I -was a liar. He prefaced his remarks •with the statement that up to now the

Bay of Plenty contest had been a clean one, but; was no longer so. Mr. Hultquist relies a great deal on innunedo but I think 1 am entitled to know whether lie meant that, in his opinion, 1 was responsible for this. Then lie went on to rub in the dirt. He accused me cf misrepresenting him “more than once” in the “Fast Coast Press.” I deny this, absolutely. On the other hand, Mr. Huitquist oil more than one occasion has turned to me when 1 have been reporting his own meetings with a request not to publish a part cl what lie lias said. At liis Waima meeting his exact words were “Don’t publish this, -Mr. Nathan, we’re all irietids here.” Now what about truth in publicity!" On Wednesday night be read out what he said was a letter to the press referring to the attendance at that same Waiina meeting. This alleged that Mr. Huitquist’s own report to. the paper put the number at 83. whereas it had been 38. He said lie had wired tlie chairman and lie road what lie alleged was liis reply: “1 definitely stnto the number was S 3 at Waima. lour opponent's meeting numbered 1 25.” “i was at-, both meetings, Sir, and what is more 1 counted the attendances. -Mr. Huitquist’s meeting drew 38 people, excluding himself and myself. I am willing to wager any sum Mr. Huitquist likes to name that that was the exact attendance. 31 r. Huitquist, who appears to think be Ims a monopoly on truth, may be able to sway, au unthinking audience. As a poor but honest scribe, lie may lie poor buf A., well, I leave it to readers as to whether his statements, quoted statistics and other figures can be relied upon. The chairman of Mr. Hidtquist’s meeting was not present at liis opponent’s. 'Where did be get “25” from? That definitely is a mis-statement. Mr. Huitquist seems td be making a last hopeless effort to raise a side issue, for •political purposes—but lie should be man enough to refrain from trying to pi lory the character of a private individual. F. NATHAN. THE COST OF LIVING Sir.—ln reply to “Eyewash” I would like to state that tlie article in question mentioned by myself referred to the cost of living increasing bv more than 15 per cent. This of

course includes rent, clothes, iood, fuel etc. As far as the food prices mentioned are concerned “Eyewash” gave nearly the correct figure which is slightly below 23 per cent. 'I he fooil prices referred to Auckland and the article said “applies to more than DO' per cent, of grocery .stores in the city and suburban areas-” The paper definitely stated that the increase in cost of living exceeded 15 per cent, which is well below -\lr. Sullivan’s figures (elastic) and as published in ’a lending T ory paper can he taken as substantially correct, at the present time. The error of mine in referring to the increase in toodstuils being slightly over 15 per cent, instead of the reference being to the cost of living was quite accidental and was not published with the intention to mislead your readers. I must thank your correspondent for putting myself and Mr. Sullivan right as regards the foodstuffs cost. I can still challenge 31 r. Sullivan to say that tho Government Statistician’s figures were incorrect as last published. 31 r. Sullivan is still trying to tell people that the increase in the cost of living is practically 20 per cent, more than tho increase of the people’s income. Yet people have been able to buy and still can buy more goods than previously. How is it done? 'Thanking von for use of reading space. G. WASHINGTON.