COUNCIL ELECTIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 17637, 16 April 1921, Page 3

COUNCIL ELECTIONS.

TO THE EDITORSir —On my return to Duneain I was shown a letter written by Mx J. B. Shacklock on March 31, in which he states that the whole of the first paragraph of my letter on investigation will bo found to be a scries of misstatements, as the council has not done any of tho things I lay to its charge. In reply, I submit that the water rights purchased off Mr Johnston have been proclaimed a sludge channel, and I say further that the payment to Mr Johnston, of Waipori, for his privileges was £2,000. My statement of the costly white elephant at Leo Stream is also correct. For the ratepayers’ benefit I submit that the sum spent on the Lee Stream proposal before it was abandoned cost ihe ratepayers £16,914 on this useless and unnecessary bungle. I also submit that the business ability of some councillors caused them to work a point on the city. Hid they not acquire the rights at Waipori Falls, float the Waipori Company, and did it not cost the City Council £34,000 for this stroke of “business ability” to buy it back from the company? Is it not also true that the jarrafi tramway sleepers cost the City Council £838? Is it not a fact that these sleepers were unfit for use for tho purpose for which, they -were acquired, and consequently were never used for tramway purposes? Is it not true that the cost of dismantling and re-erecting the gasholder was £8,778? These are but a few of many bungles which cost the ratepayers dear, and justified me in maintaining that the trading concerns prospered in spite of the “ business ability ” of the city councillors, now not because of it. Can Mr Shacklock show which of these statements is incorrect? 1 submit that bluff and business ability may bo a good combination, but it cannot disguise tho facts I disclose. —I am, etc., J. ii. MacManus. April 15. TO THU EDITORSir, —I have to thank you for having granted me space to warn tho Dunedin industrialists of how they are being imposed upon by some of those who control the affairs of the Trades Hall. I have been told on all sides by workers belonging to our city that I have been doing good propaganda work in tho interests of the rank and file. Another side of the story, however, has- appeared on tho screen, and as a “ free lance ” I would like you to grant me a little more space, this time as a critic of what Comrades MacManus and Steve Boreharn would call tho “business ability’’ ticket. -I refer to the list of nominees put forward by tho League of Loyal Citizens and tho Hunodiin branch of tho N.Z. Welfare League. No doubt, “ Official Labor ” (even my friend, J. A. Brown) will be wearing the Red on election day. What is tho color of the new league with the highsounding “patriotic” name? Will it be yellow, or will it bo black? And while writing above the word “patriotic” I would like to know who was tho writer ..who first said that “ patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels”? Mr C. E. Statham’s (?) new party—the Welfare League—is talking a lot about “patriotism” too, so the League of Loyal Citizens is going to push in the Welfare League’s propaganda at the council election, and in doing so help to work up the “ patriotic ” sentiment early before the next parliamentary elections, are they? It would certainly be interesting to know. But for a crticism of some, at least, of the “loyal” candidates! What, Mr Editor, as I think you yourself ask in your editorial columns of Saturday evening, have these councillors and ex-councillors already done to justify the electors voting for them? Take Crs Hancock and Hayward. Were not these the men who “ turned turtle ” over the Sunday night concerts? If so, then they should certainly not bo elected. Why? Because we want men with backbone —men who are not related to “ Mr Facing-both-ways.” Cr Lamach is not a resident of Dunedin municipal district, is he? Whose interests do Crs Green, Sin cock, Taverner,, and

ex-Cr Tapley represent ? What, may I ask, did ’any of tho twelve 'do during the war to give them a “loyal” title? I believe Mr R. Gilkison did go to Europe as a Y.M.C.A. representative; but I am not aware that any of the other eleven oven offered to do home service work at soldiers’ pay. These men have tho impertinence now to call themselves “loyal” citizens, and to ask Diggers and others who sacrificed during the war to vote for them. It is to be sincerely hoped that tho rank and file of the R.S.A. will not allow their executive to pull the wires that will secure a majority of votes for the wrongly-named League of Loyal Citizens directed by th° New Zealand Welfare League. With your permission I would like, as a “free lance” and a critic, to compare later on tho platforms of Official Labor and of the League of Loyal Citizens. I feel sure such a comparison would be interesting to vou.r readers, especially seeing that the O.L.R.C. is not showing any signs so far of accepting my challenge to it to debate Labor questions. —I am, etc., G. S. Thomson.

TO Tin’, EDITOR Sir,—The Labor Representation Committee—assuming to represent Labor, which it docs not—has nominated _ a ticket-for tho coming elections, and is asking for support to this ticket, the personnel of this ticket is open to criticism, as it is fair that those who arc asked to vote should have some knowledge of the class of men they are invited to support. The head of the committee is of foreign extraction. Whether he is a naturalised British subject I know not; but 1 do know that ho has very strong Bolshevik or Soviet tendencies, which Jie does not take much trouble to disguise. Another of tho candidates proposed some drastic motion about “self-determination for Ireland at a meeting on St. Patrick’s Day. This meeting sang lustily _ 1 God Save Ireland,’ and refrained from singing ' God Save the King.’ Comment would be superfluous. Most of tho candidates are anti-conscriptionisls. It has appeared in public print, and has never been denied, that Mr James Munro, who supported the war and who did his part in recruiting soldiers, was turned down for those elections by tho same Labor Representation Committee. Is it too much to read into this that Mr Munro’s actions were an unforgivable sin in the eves of this body? If I have in any way wronged these men in regard to their loyalty I ask them to submit to this simple test: y.Vhon their next Rundav night’s meeting is held 01 , indeed, at anv of their meetings—let them advertise that they will open (nr close) the meeting with the National Anthem. I will be there to hoar their president loading off, and I will take part- in it too; but I am afraid I will not be granted this honor and privilege. Rome of the “soap box” orators at the Fountain might enlighten their hearers as to how the extreme Labor Party stand in regard to loyalty.—l am, etc,, Patriot. April 15. „ TO THE EDITOttSir,—Mr MacManus occupies much space in a lengthy repetition of statements maue bv Mr G. S- Thomson and myself, but evades the real issue. This, I repeat,_ is not the marketing of fish or meat, which is one of the planks in tho citizens’ platform in any case, but tho fitness or unfitness of certain candidates to control city and Harbor Board affairs, and I respectfully submit that the ideals of the Socialist Party are so foreign to all which the average citizen holds dear, and the qualifications of their- candidates so conspicuous by their absence, that they arc not fit and proper persons for office. As to Mr MacManus himself, a man is known by the company he keeps, and for a loyal citizen Mr MacManus keeps queer company. In has last letter he conveniently “ has no connection ” with the organisations responsible for one stupid strike after another. In his next ho will probably disown the Official Labor Party and tho “Labor” Representation Commit tec altogether. In order to pin this volatile comrade down to something definite I make the following statments: — (a) The so-called Labor Party is merely a Communistic political organisation masquerading in the name of Labor. (b) Its avowed objective is the overthrow of our present Constitution. (c) To gain this end it aims at getting the control of our “political machinery,” whether local or general. (d) This party professes to govern for its own class aeainst all others. (c) Its candidates are puppets controlled by an outside body, and are- not free agents. In all vital matters they are not allowed to use their own discretion. These statements briefly summarise the ideals, aims, and methods of tho party to which Mr MacManus belongs, and whom he claims to represent. Under such a flag and under such leadership Mr_ MacManus and his fellow-candidates rightly stand suspect as to their loyalty, their independence of thought and action, and even their common sense.—l am, etc., April 14. Civic Duty.