CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 120, 21 May 1920, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

MR. FRASER'S POSITION IO THE EDITOK. Sir, —Don't you think that your correspondent "W." and yourself are in dan- j ger (to say the least) of making yourselves ridiculous by labouring this question ot Mr. P. Frasers "disloyalty"'; The title of your leader ana some of the sentiments expressed cannot but raise a 'smile when one considers what The 7 Post's attitude has been in the past. If your leader means anything, it means that The Post stands for " the prompt and accurate registration in the easiest way of the unsuhorued will of the people." I may. of course, be doing The Post s:i injustice in assuming this, but, if not, would it- be in order to inquire what The Post was doing when the Mayor of this city took it upon himself to refuse the use of. the Town Hall to ■ citizens for no reason except that he disapproved of the opinions of people who wished 'to use the hall, and who were reiying on the right that British people are supposed to have to express their views in public meeting. When the late Parliament set the Constitution aside and voted themselves two extra years of office and the emoluments that go with office, and when the Labour Party protested agirtnst such unprincipled conduct, did it ha-vethe support of The Post when contending that the people should have their constitutional right to express their " unsubomed will"? To your correspondent "W" I should like to say that the Labour Party is too la.te to take up the matter of "the reform of public meeting" ; the forces of reaction got in first, and sent to gaol, many men who were so simple as to believe that their expressed admiration for the principle' of the right of public meeting was anything but lip service. The interest that The' Post, your correspondent "W,"' and the Welfare. League are taking in the Labour Party and its platform and principles is quite, touching, but I would remind all three "that. zerA for the registration of the r.nsnborned will of the people, if true, willi ring true all along the line.'-' Was your correspondent "W" to the fore in ad.vocutii.'rr the*right of public meeting when Labour supporters were going to gaol in its defence?

In the opinion of" opponents a Labour M.P. has only one fault at bottom; thr-t fault is being an M.P., and if .the members of the. party were so foolish as to resign "every time they were accused of disloyalty, or of being "Socialists," ©•• "Red Feds," or "I.W.W.'s," or "Bolsheviks," their political opponents would see to it that there was no lack of byelections. ' >

In conclusion, might I suggest to The Post that as slr. Semple has proved in the Courts that he was vilely slandered, and the most abominable stories circulated about him, it might be in order to ask-some of our other M.P.'s to resign, in order that the electors might have an opportunity of reconsidering their decision, now they are in possession of tjie truth? Will The Post kill two birds with one atone by advocating two by-'elections?—l am, etc., J. M'KENZIE. 20th May. [This correspondent misrepresents. What'we wrote was that "zeal for theRecall is—or should »be—zeal for ths prompt and accurate registration, in the easiest way, of the unsuborned will of the people." As to the' question what was The Post doing "when the Mayor of the City took it upon himself to refuse the use of the Town Hall," etc.', The Post* wrote an article dissenting from the Mayor's attitude, and in another article, headed "A Wise BackDown," it approved the reversal of that attitude, arguing that, even in war-time, the cause- of national unity would be "hindered rather than helped by the interference of an unqualified tribunal with the ordinary rights of free speech on legitimate subjects of controversy." Does this bear out the correspondent'sinference? On the other hand. The Post does not defend the abuse of free speech; it supports the punishment of authors of seditious utterances in war-time; and as the safety of the State is the- supreme law, it admits a Parliament's right "in war-time to extend its own life if circumstances justify. We have excised from the correspondent's/letter a personal reference to one of Mr. Fraser's opponents in this controversy.—Ed.]