GIBSON v. HAWKINS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXX, Issue 63, 10 November 1914, Page 8

GIBSON v. HAWKINS.

J Sir,—ln your issue of last Saturday ll see that the Parliamentary, candidate Hawkins has a reply to my previous letter concerning the report of his To Wera meeting. The letter is just on a par with the stylo of his addresses, and may be summed up in the one word, "Abuse." The writer made only one interjection, and that was in reply to a rhetorical (save the word) question. The question was: ""What do we find now? A small boy got up and walked out, and the reply given was, "The small boy has to go out." This raised a laugh at Hawkins' expense. The audience numbered at least 50, and the responses in favor of the amendment, "and confidence in the Ward Party," was limited to five voices. This statement can be supported by thoso-who attended the meeting. It certainly was "practically unanimous" as regards those who responded. Tire candidate is quite right in saying that Gibson has not a vote in this district, but entirely in error in saying that he is a tool of his boss, as lie happens to bo the boss himself. The word "boss" looks well in print, especially as it has been written by a one-time editor. I do not intend, sir. to trouble you with any further correspondence on this matter, as it only provokes the candidate who cannot give a refutation of the statements. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., W. GIBSON. Te Wera, November 9. 1914.