MR McKENZIE'S CHALLENGE.

Otaki Mail, Volume 27, 10 December 1919, Page 4

MR McKENZIE'S CHALLENGE.

! ~" MB FIELD REPLIES, Mr W.-'H. Field lias addressed the following letter to Mr J. McKenzie with respect to Mr McKenzie's challenge to public debate: — "I received yesterday [December 1] your letter of the 29th ult., inviting me to meet you on the platform and debate the meaning and the advisability or otherwise of the Labour Party'st objective: "The socialisation or the means of production, distribution and exchange.'' You will, I am sure, have fully realised when you wrote, the futility of the proposal made by you. It would bo a waste of your time and mine. I have affirmed on the platform that your party's objective is purely socialistic, and that its intent is the destruction _p£ -.private ownership of land and capital, an ending to private employment and enterprise, and the payment of all wages by the State through a socialistic Government; This I adhereto and maintain mine to" be a correct inter- . prctution of the objective to which you have pledged "yourself in writing. If, however, you hold that'it is capable of any other meaning, it is for you to ,cx- ■ plain that-meaning/to' the- electors. Whereas I have oaid that on my part I have taken pains to place before the public every item of the policy which 1113- party propounds, you, if the newspaper reports are correct, eonfiue yourself chiefly."to attacks 011 the Govern•tnent, and promises thdt your party, if placed iu power, will rectify every-* thing. '

You have apparently' refrained from explaining or even mentioning the,objective to which you have pledged yourself, and Psuggest that the public is entitled,to hear from you in detail what the objective would actually entail if put into operation. There is still ample time for you to take the public into your confidence without recourse to a debate, which" would have no conclusive result: The question whether socialisation is good or bad for the community is one that, has been the -subject of- controversy for generations, and it is absurd to suggest that you and I could settle the matter in one evening and in the manner you mention. In any ease this is not the question at issue between us. The question at issue is whether you do or do not lay bare your objective to the public. Furthermore, I would mention that even if your proposal commended its.elf to me, it would be quite impossible for me to comply, for "the reason that'l am fully engaged every evening until election day. I would remind you that for weeks before I was Released from my sessional, duties you were actively electioneering, and the time at my. disposal \vill not permit my visiting several centres of the district at which you have met the electors.

I also draw your attention to the fact that a number of your leading supporters, including the chairman of the Levin branch of your party, are busily engaged, if not at you instigation presumably with your acquiescence, assailing me in respect of my private affairs and those of my wife and family. It would not matter if the persons in question would adhere to the truth, for every transaction of mine and theirs will boar the closest scrutiny. But gross misstatements are being made, doubtless on the principle that if sufficient mud is thrown some of it is sure to stick, and the result is that valuable time which I should bo devoting to legitimate election work is , being absorbed in trying to overtake and correct these wanton inaccuracies of your friends. You are, of course, at liberty to publish this correspondence."