LABOUR POLICY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22390, 2 May 1938, Page 5

LABOUR POLICY

»0 FBI EOITOB Ot IB* PM9# Sir,—Mr E. E. Langley, in Thursday’s issue, makes the following statement, “1 personally acted as his ch air mm"i right througn three General Elections in an effort to win the Christchurch East seat for Labour. He fought rignt loyally and well, but it was noi to be. When I wrote my last letter I had not had time to look up the records but I have since consulted back numbers of “The Press” in the Public Library. and the following is contained therein: —October 19. 1911. committee meeting. Mr J. Lyness in the pna'rOctober 31. opening address, Waltham School, Mr A. D. Hart in the chair. November 6. St. Saviour’s schoolroom, Mr G. E. Good in the chair. November 18. Latimer square. Mr W. Herbert 1 could not find any mention of Mr Langley at any of my meetings during 1911. The result of the poll was:—Thacker 2492, Davey 2360. Hunter 2356. Cooke 418. In 1914 the name of the party was changed to the New Zealand Social Democratic Party. Hiram Hunter, national president, stood under its auspices for Christchurch East. Opening address, November 17. Opera House. Mr J. A. McCullough in the chair; November 18. Ditfort’s Hall. Mr T. H. Butterfield in the chair. I have not had time yet to search all the papers, and will perhaps have another opportunity. On this occasion the aftermath of the 1913 strike, as well as the unpopularity of the name of the party, had its effect on the Labour vote throughout the Dominion, but the voting in Christchurch was. Thacker 4018, Hunter 2039, Macfarlane 1287 In' 1919 I was the only opponent of Dr H. T. J. Thacker, who was the sitting member, the Mayor of the city, and at the height of his popularity, yet the voting shows that I was not altogether disgraced. It was as follows; —Thacker 5131, Hunter 3395; maJ °The voting in Christchurch North on that occasion was: —L. M. Isitt 5656, H. T. Armstrong 3651. majority 2005. I leave your readers to judge whether the implication in Mr Langley’s letter is warranted. I will deal with the question of the winning of the selection ballot for Christchurch East, and the subsequent winning of the seat in a further letter, if I may be permitted to do so. In view of the following remark of Mr Langley’s, I think I am entitled to put the other side of the picture which, I am sure, will be both entertaining and educational. “Later I” (Mr E. E. Langley) “chaired the Hon. H. T. Armstrong in his first fight for this seat, which he won easily.”— Yours, etc„ HIRAM HUNTER. May 1. 1938.

TO m IDITOB OV TWM PU» Sir,—The present Government seems quite proud of the fact that it has robbed one part of the community of millions of money for the benefit of another part. One would think this was surely unconstitutional. If the Government wants anything it simply

passes an act giving it permission to take it. I should think that those persons who take advantage of the abominable Mortgages Act will be ashamed to look in the faces of the rightful owners of the money, for the fact that the Government has sanctioned it does not make honest people of them.— Yours, etc.. PERPLEXED. April 30, 1938.