IN VINDICATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 April 1919, Page 7

IN VINDICATION.

(To the Editor)

feir,—Mr. R. Masters, in a letter pub-1 lished by him in Saturday's Daily News refers to the action of the chairman (Mr. Sangster) in refusing to allow me to speak at Messrs Powdrell and Hun-

ter's. prohibition lecture at Midhirst). Mr, Masters goes on t6'say that;—" The facts as given to me by Mr. Sangster are tliese: The early part of the meeting was- persistently disturbed by an individual full of zeal for the cause of Moderation or Continuance. In .endeavoring to maintain order. Mr. Sangster promised the interrupter, and him alone, that he. could have ten minutes' hearing when the efficiency speakers had finished. This promise.was construed by Mr. Coleman, who is, X believe, the secretary oi the local branch of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, as a general invitation to mount the platform. It was, of course, nothing of the kind, and the chairman acted quite properly in refusing permission The hall was engaged by the Efficiency League and if there j was unfairness, if Mr Sangster's verI sion to me is a correct one—and I have

i no reason to doubt it—it lay in the atI tempt of the other side to use the platj form ffir thteir own purposes." In reply, I have merely tjo observe that the above statement of £hc "facts" if given by Mr. Sangster to Mr. ..lasters as he claims is absolutely untrue. Mr Sangster, in introducing the speakers, distinctly said thai anyone could go on the platform at the close of the meeting and address the audience for ten minutes provided Messrs Powdrell and Hunter had the right to reply. During the course of the evening the individual referred to by Mr. Masters as being full pf zeal for the cause of continuance interrupted the speakers a good deal, and Mr. Sangster promised to let him speak for ten minutes at the close of j'theV addresses. When I claimed the j right to speak I did so in reliance on I Mr. Sangster's first statement when i» traducing the speakers, not on account orljis promise to the interrupter at all. Mr. • Sangster refused to allow me to speak, though both Messrs. Powdrell and Hunter had sufficient honor and decency to tell him, there and then, that such an.invitation had been extended and I was consequently within my lf rights in claiming to be heard. Everyone in the hall knows that this is ;p*»plutely true. The reporters both of | ?the|Btratford Post and the Daily News, '.-by.lheir reports prove that my version is the correct one. To sum up:—(1) Mr. Sang3ter's statcme-' to Mr. Mas-' ters, as told by Mr. Masters, is absolutely untrue and is as inaccurate as the greater proportion of the Prohibition Party's statements. (2) I am not the Secretary of the local Licensed Victuallers' Association, nor am I connected with that body in any way, officially or unofficially. (3) Mr. Masters had n'o right to say that I was, or even to infer it. (4) Mr Masters' naive acceptance of Mr. Sangster's version is only a proof of his credulity in accepting ex parte prohibition statements, and his statement, upon on grounds Whatever, as to my supposed employment by the L.V.A is impertinent. If it were true, I would naturally have no objection to his making it. (5) It is a pity that Mr. Sangster does not defend himself instead of leaving it to third parties who, not being present, have only a hearsay knowledge of the case.—l am, etc. ALFRED COLEMAN.