OUR READERS' OPINIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4526, 18 April 1917, Page 6

OUR READERS' OPINIONS.

BOROUGH ELECTION AND THE MEAT QUESTION.

(To tlie Editor.) Sir, —In the cause of honesty in our public life and honor to whom honor is due,. I ask your indulgence to complain about the audacious statement , made- at the .meeting of the Social Democrats on Saturday last by one ot their selected candidates for a Borough seat, when he says: “The Labor party had first moved in the matter of the cost of living, and that in June last, as a result of the party’s agitation, the Board of Trade visited Gisborne.” Mr: Editor, as one who lias been keenly watching the course of events in regard to the ever-increasing cost of living, I claim that I can give an unbiassed account of the actions of those .bodies which were working in the interests of the poorer classes of the community, and without any parly-parlaver, I wish to place on record the following facts: — After , the first year of the war it dawned on the people that the cost of living was becoming excessively high, and complaints were voiced by different organisations, mainly by City Councils and Borough Councils, with the result that the Government set up a Board of Trade to inquire into the | whole subject; and any suggestions made by this body in the direction of giving relief to the people would be given effect to ,by the Government xlie Gisborne Borough Council, mainly at the instance of Cr. Hill, invited the Board of Trade to Gisborne to inquire into alleged unfair , charges of meat, bread, etc. Immediately afterwards this precious Social Democratic partv that we are inflicted with in Gisborne called a monster meeting at 'the Scottish Hall to protest against the high cost of living. As one who is in sympathy with any movement which tends to ameliorate the condition of the workers, I attended this meeting in great glee, and full of iiope that at last the millenium had arrived. My high hopes for the poor and oppressed were soon dispelled, for the chairman. Mr. Arthur Richards, made no bones about stating that the Social Democrats intended to ignore me' Board of Trade, on the pretext, I think, that the said Board was not represented by a direct representative of labor. Mr. Richards omitted to mention that of the two members of the Board of Trade, one, Mr. Hally, was for a number of years Conciliation Commissioner at Wellington, and that the Trades Council officials had always regarded him as one of their 'best friends. The worthy chairman (Mr. Arthur Richards) might have mentioned, but lie didn’t, that Mr. Collins, the secretary to the Board, was Chief Clerk of the Labor Department, and therefore intimately in touch with trades and labor condition in New Zealand. I understand from an ex-member of the Socialist party that the foregoing facts were given prominence to at a subsequent caucus meeting, and that ’ the party then shifted their ground of objection and stated that the real grievance was that the Board of JTrade was sitting : in camera.

Anyhow, the Board of Trade came to Gisborne, and invited and welcomed, through the press, any outside evidence from independent witnesses on the question of the cost of living. The only independent witnesses thatresponded to tAie call were the Mayor (Mr. W. G. Siierratt), Crs. H. E. Hill and G. C. Munns, and Mr. Westbrooke (Inspector of Factories). Other witnesses attended, but they were the butchers and managers of freezing works, so I think we can class them as interested parties. Now, Sir, in face of the above plain statement of facts, how can this Social Democratic party claim any particle of credit in trying to better the condition of the workers? There is no doubt, in my opinion, that this so-called Labor part)’ wish to decry Cr. Hill’s unceasing efforts in forcing the Borougii Council to take action anent the high cost of living, and they show their venenious teeth by advertising that every vote for the candidates other than those selected by the Social Democrats is a vote against Labor. It would be more honest and would express their inmost thoughts if they had said: “Vote against Harry Hill, for lie lias stolen our ‘thunder’.” —VYours, etc.. FAIR PLAY. » “MORE LIGHT” REPLIES TO “REBEL.” (To the Editor.) Sir,—“Rebel’s” reply to my request for further information regarding the success he dreamingly concludes would result from the inauguration of municipal trading in all the necessaries of life is not in keeping with one assuming the exalted position of tendering advice to the electors of Gisborne on how they should demand from each of the candidates a guarantee that they implicitly support his particular nostrum. But instead of giving a few details concerning the operation of his .scheme and some assurance of its success, he enters upon a series of excuses, among which lie states that he took for granted that all, with the exception of myself, understood the principles connected with the working of his fanaticism. Now. of all the foolish excuses, surely that one deserves a place in the front rank. Is it not reasonable to assume that the electors, if in possession of that knowledge, would have acted on their own initiative and thus have saved “Rebel” the onerous task of being the people’s political adviser, and apparently the sequel of a dangerously inflated mind?

The public do not seek advice on how to r.ct once they are satisfied that a particular scheme will produce satisfactory results. But it is because of the spectre of failure which attaches itself to “Rebel’s” panacea that urges the people to demand further enlightenment (and rightly, too) before deciding upon its adoption. In my statement to the effect that high salaries paid to officials were a factor that made for the failure of public ownership, I did not think it would be necessary to throw more light on the subject for the edification of the redoubtable “Rebel.” It is not a fact that the salaries paid to officials are commensurate with the services they render, but quite tilTe opposite is the case; it is m inverse ratio. Their salaries are computed to the services rendered. Obviously, if services were given in equal proportion to the salaries received, a deficiency in that respect would be impossible. In reference to the existence at the present time of the “go slow” policy m private enterprise, one has to take into consideration that these are abnormal times, and.tbat such a thing would be quite impossible under normal conditions. With a reserve army of workers to compete with the present exponents of the “go slow” policy, I think they would then be compelled to get a move on or they would find their positions being filled 1 by more competent men. The slackening of their belt would suggest to them that their ridiculous policy was not in any wjjy profitable. In conclusion, Air.. Editor, I would urge upon “Rebel” to arouse himself from the condition of somnolency which apparently has enveloped him and desist from offering advice to the electors on matters the operation of which are unintelligible to himself.— I am, Sir, yours, etc., “MORE LIGHT.”