THREATS DENIED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 181, 15 May 1941, Page 2

THREATS DENIED

MR NATHAN’S ALLEGATIONS.

UNION OFFICIAL’S STATEMENT. (P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 14. Commenting on the allegations by Mr H. L. Nathan that he had been intimidated by five trade union officials, the Wellington Trades Council to-day gave its version of the affair. It said that on Friday morning Mr Nathan was reported as having , made a very vicious suggestion to the effect that Labour candidates who were also trades union secretaries would not carry out their duties impartially, as they had to bow to the dictates of the union!?.

“Mr Nathan was exceedingly careful not to refer to any individual candidate,” says the statement. “Had he done so, the necessary steps would have been promptly taken. Only a basely ambiguous charge was made. The utter unfairness of Mr Nathan’s statement, and its complete absurdity, will bo apparent to every fair-minded-per-son when the important part trades unionists and officials are 1 taking in. the present conflict is borne in mind.

“The statement caused considerable resentment among trades unionists. The matter wont beyond local politics, and was a grave reflection on the ifttegrity of a large section of the community. It was felt that if the statement had been made without fully realising the unfairness of it, and without due regard to the actual facts, an opportunity, should bo given Mr Nathan to act uprightly after hearing representations. With’ his consent, an interview was arranged to suit his convenience. Two delegates were to have soon him; but in the interim resentment had grown, and three others attended. “Mr Nathan told his interviewers that ho -would not listen to any comment on the Teport, nor afty protest regarding it. He imperiously ordered the representatives from the room and acted in the most high-handed manner, A Proiest Read. “In anticipation of the fact that Mr Nathan might probably act in this manner a written protest had been prepared, and this read to him, in spite of his repeated interruptions. He then calmed down sufficiently to enable the representatives to attempt to reason with him. He was .requested either honestly to admit that he had spoken hastily or unfairly, or openly and publicly to accuse any Labour candidate of malpractice in order that the matter could be cleared up in a Court of law. Mr Nathan refused to adopt either course. He was then thanked for the interview and the delegation left. “No threats of force Wore made. It was left that’ his sense of propriety and fair play would lead Mr Nathan to right a palpabld wrong, but unfortunately this was not so. Apparently the episode has been circulated in a distorted form, ' ' “It is obvious that it was to this interview that Mr. Hislop referred in rather a sensational, darksome manner. It is apparent that he desired to cloak the matter in an air of mystery, withholding the facts, and placing an entirely wrong construction on the affair. “We welcome any inquiry. We suggest that Mr Hislop should concern himself with correcting untrue and friction-making statements of a colleague, ratheir than attempt to use it to his advantage. Since Friday ho has had the opportunity of checking the facts; but failed to do so. He rather chooses to make capital from unfounded rumours, and use them by innuendo.”