CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 April 1921, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE LABOR PARTY: WHAT IT STANDS FOR (To the Editor.) Sir, —On Saturday you published a letter from Mr. Fairweather, purporting to be an answer to my observations on the Sunday night’s Labor rally. He certainly wrote a good deal without saying very much. He states that my observations were "a jumble of inaccuracies," but just where I was inaccurate he fails to state. He suggests that I accused Mr. McCombs of making sweeping charges against all other political parties. Now, what I did say was that Mr. McCombs denounced all other political parties, whichi he did; that he made coonplimentary references to the late John Ballance and Richard John Seddon is beside the question. Mr. Fairweather states that quite a number of those present were considerably enlightened by Mr. McCombs’ explanation of proportional representation. That of course may be quite true, but, on the other hand, I venture to say not one per cent, of those present were any tho wiser when he finished his blackboard demonstration. I can assure Mr. Fairweather I am not by any means alone in that opinion. Personally I doubt if Mr. Fairweather understood just what Mr. McCombs meant to convey, and to show how inaccurate I am, he says, "taking my own figures.” If Mr. Fairweather wil l look up my letter he will find I never quoted any. figures, so I certainly could not be inaccurate there, and as he evidently wants figures I will just give him a few to go on with. The present Labor parties In power in Queensland and New South Wales polled at the last election respectively as follows:—Queensland: Labor 70,442, anti-Labor 190,300/ New South Wales: Labor 285,752, antiLabor 300,000. Now it is ' quite clear that both Governments are In power by a minority v»te, notwithstanding proportional voting in New South Wales, and as we are assured the Labor party is so politically virtuous, how is it they do not resign? Mr. McCombs was very emphatic about the Massey party having no right to be in power because they represented a minority. Then Mr. Fairweather goes on to talk of conscription of wealth, and assures us that it was seriously considered by the British Government. I never said it was not so considered. I said it was a stupid suggestion, and as it was not adopted by the British Government it is pretty safe to say it was because it was stupid. Of course mast peqple know the Labor Party are not the only people who advocate State shipping. I never said they wera. 1 only showed where State enterprises had been a costly failure. Now I will give just one more. The. West Australian Government set out in the freezing works business, and they estimated to freeze bullocks at 16s 8d per head, and they succeeded in doing the job at £5 16s per head. Wonderfully successful, Mr. Fairweather, is it not? Their shipping enterprise was no more successful. Now, I would ask Mr. Fairweather to give a straight answer to the following, without indulging in a lot of windy phrases: Is the Labor Party loyal? Did Mr t McCombs declare his loyalty? Did the' Queensland Government raise accident insurance 50 per cent.?

Have their railways paid since the Labor Government came into power? Did their Premier get any money from the hated capitalist? Just tell us, has our own State mine been a success? Has it paid? Tell us how the Labor Party helped in the war? Did not some of their leaders prefer tree-planting under Government supervision sooner than face the ITun? It is certain if the Labor Party could have their way, Mr. Fairweather and other working dairy farmers would now be encountering Heavy weather in working for the Hun.—l am, etc.. OBSERVER. THE WELFARE LEAGUE. (To the Editor.) Sir,—My patient, the Wellington League propagandist, is progressing very favorably. Although only 15 days have elapsed since I treated him, his effusion of invectives has diminished about 33 per cent, in quantity, and even more so in temperature. That is. as regards the Labor Unions. When he deals with my personal attitude, I am not a "scheming syndicalist,” nor yet "insiduously treacherous.” I am merely "academic.” This improvement in his condition, as the result of only one treatment, must be considered very satisfactory. I now recommend careful nursing, and a light literary diet of elementary political economy. The ingredients for this diet are obtainable from the beginner’s section of any of the AVelllngton socialist libraries. Of course, any relapse Into a further linguistic "jass” must be studiously avoided. There are a few other symptoms which require attention. For instance, the reading. public expect a journalist to conform roughly to the rules governing English composition, such rules, say, as are in common use in the Fifth Standard. These rules do not countenance writing a letter “To the Editor,” and then suddenly breaking off, and addressing "Mr. Baxter” direct—a small development of unconscious humor I take to be a favorable symptom. He charges me with committing a good joke, and with taking offence, all in the space of my fourinch letter. It is impossible that my temperament is as mercurial as all that. Then, cannot I persuade him to sign his name to his next paroxysm, and let tme have a square look at him? His shrinking modesty has the opposite effect to that which be intends, for to address a letter to the correspondence column, and supply no signature whatever, simply makes him as painfully conspicuous as the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. To sum up, if he follows my prescriptions faithfully, and leads a quiet life for the next few months, it is quite likely that he will eventually be able to discuss the social problem comparatively rationally, and bis principals may tee justified in retaining him In his present employment.—l am, etc.,

H. W. BAXTER. Egmont Village, April 16, 1921.