MR WITTY "EXPLAINS."

Press, Volume L, Issue 14918, 17 March 1914, Page 8

MR WITTY "EXPLAINS."

to the editob or "the press."

Sir, —Many thanks for your comments regarding myself in "The Press" of March 11th and 12th. As usual, they aro full of inaccuracies and spleen. But that does not worry mc, especially as your bias and bittterness have always been of considerable assistance to the Liberals of Canterbury. Though many read your paper, they think for themselves, and do not accept your directions as to how they should vote, clear evidence of which is afforded by the results of the province's elections during tho last quarter of a century. But in criticising an opponent, especially one whom you have eulogised so much in the past, you Inight, at least., have been truthful. You mako mc state that I had stood beside the grave of Sir Arthur Guinness and heard Lady Guinness ask Mt Fisher to retain tho old messengers at Parliament Buildings That is untruth No. 1. I never said that Lady Guinness was at the graveside of the late Speaker, neither have I ever mentioned Mr Fisher in connexion with Ladr Guinness's request. The old messengers were turned out, and older men were put in their places by Mr Fishor. No provision was made for the discarded messengers. Your sneers at my statement regarding defence aro not worth noticing. My statement was true in every respect, and your assertion to the contrary cannot alter the fact. Now for your comments in Thursday's issue. They are as far removed from the truth, and as misleading, as those of the previous day, and that is saying a good deal. You make mc say that I had asked Mr Fisher whether the Government had provided free tobacco and cigarettes for the special constables during the strike, and that the Minister had declared that this was the first he had heard of it. Seeing that Mr Fisher was not present at the meeting, how could T ask him a question? You must have mistaken the Tory organiser for Mr Fisher. Now, what I did was to read the question which had been asked of Mr Fisher at Kaiapoi, and reported i__ a Christc-hurdi paper. In reply, the Minister (Mr Fisher) declared that he had never heard of special constables in Wellington having been supplied with cigarettes and tobacco at the expense of the Government. To make sure, I asked -f the question had been put and the answer given, and the reply was an emphatic affirmative from many parts of the house. I then made the statement of which you complain, but, -under tho circumstances, that statement was entirely justified. I also stated that I held in my hand a copy of the Supplementary Estimates, in which there appears the following words:—"Tobacco and cigarettes distributed free of charge among mounted special constables in Wellington, £27." I did not say £27 10s, as you say, although you say you have looked into the Estimates (.wrong again). This is Mr Fisher's own Department, and yet, according to tho Minister, ho ,had never heard of the payment! "What was he doing in thus neglecting his obvious duties? Was he preparing the speech which he did not deliver on Friday evening? When speaking at Kaiapoi, 1 ventured to predict that the people of his own constituency would not listen to Mr Fisher, and Friday' 6 fiasco shows that 1 was no false prophet. Now for your version of the tobacco and cigarettes transaction. You say you have looked into the Estimates, and found, as you expected to find, that I was taking the anti-Reformer's usual liberty with the truth. You went on to say that the Government did not provide on the Estimates for free tobacco and cigarettes for the "specials." It was simply a refund of duty. Oh, what a distinction without a difference! Now, if tho Government did not pay for the tobacco, who did ? Did tho merchants give the tobacco? Tobacco costs, I believe, ft, per lb. It is snb'jYet to a duty of 3s 6d per lb. . TWo merchants gave the tobacco on condition that the Government refunded tho dntv which had been paid. What actually happened was that the merchants gave' (taking off the usual profit of Is per lb) tobacco worth Is 6d per lb, whilst the Government's share of the cost was 3s Gd per lb—that is duty refunded! Yet, you say that the Government did not vote money for tobacco and cigarettes! That assertion is ridiculous, and you ought to apologise. 1 may add that I raised the question in the House, as Hansard will show. In reply, Mr Allen, like you, said :t was merely a refund of duty. But it was the people's money that was spent on tobacco and cigarettes for the special constables, no matter how you twist the matter. -Neither you nor Mr Fisher -.an show that the money came from other pockets than those of the people. When Mr Fisher denies all knowledge of the business, and when -you endeavour so earnestly to whitewash "the Rainbow Minister, it makes one wonder if he and you. retain any 6ense of justice or fair play. Both should apologise for misleading, or, rather, endeavouring to mislead, the public — Yours, etc., GEORGE WITTY. [We refer briefly to this letter in a note in our leading columns. —Ed. "The Press."]