MASLIN ON STATHAM.

Evening Star, Issue 18141, 4 December 1922, Page 10

MASLIN ON STATHAM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Let me assure Mr Statham that I know nothing of the writer of the letter of “Dunedin Central’' in your issue of the 29tli ult. I have signed my name to every letter I have written in connection with the Dunedin Central election. And let me further assure him that I have no body of political mud-stingers writing to the Press under various nom-de-plumcs. Mr Statham says that ho was prepared to give both sides a fair run on the Prohibition question. How long has lie taken up this attitude? Was the amendment lie moved when the Licensing Act, 1918, was in committee a sample of his conception of a fair run? If Mr Statham had had his way we would have been handicapped by having to get a three-fifths majority to cany National Prohibition. I know that with the legal sophistry of which ho is a past master he tried to explain that black waa white. But the damning fact remains that Mr Statham, in moving his amendment, showed himself to be Die greatest enemy the Prohibition party had in Parliament. I think, however, he only had the support of eight members for his amendment, which was lost, but no thanks to Mr Statham. Now, let rno direct attention to Mr Statham’s complaint tluat I said that he (Mr Statham) had admitted that ho was one of the majority of the committee who supported the report as brought down. The Hon. Mr Lee gives on page 890 the names of seven members who were not favorable to, or supporters of, the Prohibition party. Mr Statham’s name is included in the seven names. These members, says Mr Lee, hold absolute controlling powers. Mr Statham did not object to being classed with the other six. Later Mr Leo proceeds to put on record the proposals in the report that he had voted against, making his position plain. Mr Statham could have done the same, but he was silent. Speaking later in the day, he made this pregnant statement, which indicates a desire to cover up ins tracks as much as possible. Referring to the future of the report, Mr Statham says: “The Prime Minister had promised to consider our report.” Why, I ask, “onr’’ report? Why not " the” or "it”? He next refers to the statement made by the Minister of Justice that seven of the members of the committee were supporters of the “trade.” The only objection raised by Mr Statham was to being classified as a supporter of the “trade." No other protest is made or explanation given, except his statement that on this committee he found himself in the position of having to remember that ho had given certain pledges, and that even if he had) changed his mind he felt bound to vote on the committee in accordance with the pledges ho had given. Why, I ask, did ho not follow the example of Mr Lee, and put on record for the information of electors what stand he had taken on Die questions brought before the committee? And amia to prevent all possibility cf mistake/ he desired to make plain that ho was ’ not a Prohibitionist. I think, sir, that Dio facts I have hero published justified the conclusion that be (Mr Statham) was not opposed to “our import.’’ On tho vreat moral and social questions involved, he that is not for is against; there is no neutrality.—l am, etc., W. S. Maslix. December 4.