"FREEDOM OF RED SPEECH"

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 150, 26 June 1914, Page 2

"FREEDOM OF RED SPEECH"

SUNDAY'S INCIDENT. TO THE EDITOn. Sir,—- In your issue of laat evening you stated in your sub-leader that Mr. Hindmarsh was heckled at the meeting held iv The King's Theatre on Sunday night to protest against the strike prisoners being still kept in confinement. From a perusal of your report it is evident that it was based on a report that appeared in the Dominion newspaper, and which, I might say, as chairman of the meeting, Was totally incorrect, but if you like to rely on the report of another paper for your ' facts you might at least refrain from trying to do injury to either parties or individuals. I also consider if you had tried to follow out your idea of boasted fairness, you would have, at least, rung up Mr. Hindmarsh, and I am certain he would have given a different version to what appeared in either your paper or the Dominion, as it was not he or any of the speakers that was heckled, but the mention of Mr. HerdI man's name that provoked some opposition. Otherwise, the meeting was well behaved, and the audience conducted themselves as all democratic meetings are conducted, that is, with decorum. Hoping that you will in fairness insert this. — I am, etc., ( A. A. AGNEW, Chairman of Meeting. Wellington, 24th June, 1914. j [The Post had a reporter at the meeting, and did not rely on any other newspaper for a fair summary of the speeches. Mr. Agnew's letter was handed, to Mr. i Hindmarsh on Wednesday afternoon, and The Post's report was then submitted to him. Mr. Hindmarsh admitted that it was a fair summary. He added that his impression was tliat v/hen^ his speech was interrupted at", tho mention of Mr. Herdman's name, part of the sound was applause, but there wae also hostile noise. He considered that the clamour against his expression of be-* lief in Mr. Herdman's honesty came from a comparatively small minority, and that the meeting, on the whole, gave him an. attentive hearing. This explanation does not con/radict The Post's report, nor does it prjve any flaw in The Post's argument of Tuesday that Mi*. Hindmarsh was lirjdded by Reds " when his words were ikA an exact expression of their wishes. "], Mr. P. Fraser has written lengthily and irrelevantly on the snbject of Mr. Holland's imprisonment. The , correspondent's partisan , opinions * add nothing new to the cr/ntiworsy, which has received much s'^&ce in The Post. Our view is different, and will remain different, from Mr. Fraser's. He sees the case through Tied glasses. We cannot spare space for a torrid and turgid homily which woold run to two-thirds of a column.