Correspondence

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 4, 4 February 1916, Page 3

Correspondence

WHILE it is our endeavour to give correspondents every facility for the free expression of their opinion, it should be borne in mind that the views expressed do not, necessarily, reflect the opinions of the Editor.

(TO THE EDITOR.)

Sir,—Will you kindly allow me a little space to reply as briefly as may be, to your last issue’s correspondent. In the first place, I wish to express my regret that Pro Bono Publico was disqualified from participating in this heat. Personally I will give the assurance that no action at law will be undertaken on my behalf, no matter what your correspondents may say, always provided you will treat me so generously in space, to reply, as you have done hitherto.

In reply to the statement that Labourites are champion compulsionists, I demonstrated in my last letter, the vast gulf between democratic administration such as prevails in all bona-fide unions ; and the class administration that up t® date has permitted a very few to control the destinies of the nation, even when their blunders or incompetence leads up to the great, toll now being levied.

If your Correspondent will take note of the C and A proceedings in any part of the Dominion, he will see that the preference clause is objected to on almost every occasion by the employers; and I am of the opinion that he would be one of the last to point out to these men their inconsistency. When I stated he was clever I simply accepted him at his own valuation, and pointed out that in the past he had buried these talents of his, by allowing the loud-voiced ones to take advantage of our twisted mentality, as he so classically described it. In reference to my guessing who your correspondent may be, I am still of the opinion that I guessed a bull’s-eye, which, alas, was not always the case when I was at the butts, for I never excelled as a marksman with the rifle. In explanation I may say that the individual I suspect was never more than an honorary member of the first bogus venture; but who nevertheless, worked behind the scpnes, as strenuously and as anonymously, as he is attempting to do in this controversy. On the strength of his nom-de-plume I was justified in guessing him to be among the eligihles ; anyhow to prevent all these

mistakes why not disclose his identity, as neither his right to earn his bread and butter, or his life or limb, (as is the case in his trench analogy) will be thereby endangered. Perhaps he is right in his objection to my use of the whitebait comparison, but it served my purpose well, and it is time we got out of the rut of conventialism, whether it be an economic rut or a controversial one. I honestly believe that is the worst drawback of people of his school of thought, they see only the rut they have been reared in, —misdeeds of the past centuries and unfortunately there outlook is so narrow, that not only do they fail to grasp new ideas when they are pointed out to them, but are prepared to hound out anyone who may have the temerity to advocate these new doctrines. His refe' ce to the red herring smel, twhich although not obnoxious), reminds one of motor cars, which we are told have had an unprecedented sale in the Dominion during the war poriod. Will he explain how this happens as he contends that all sections are making due sacrifices towards the heavy war expenditure by means of taxation ? Again we have the example of one Southern Flour Milling Co. in explanation of their enormous war profits, callously placing on record that;

‘‘lt’s an ill wind that blows nobody good.” These are isolated examples that could be multiplied a thousand fold, and yet we are not expected to question the patriotism of these men (?), who are invariably found amongst those who are determined ‘to carry on the war to the last man and last shilling. He ridicules the idea of taking a poll during a war, but is discreetly silent about the possibility of taking one, on the moulding of a foreign policy years before any war is likely to eventuate, and which in all probability would prevent war happening. Trade Unions logically have the same objection to a ballot extending over months, maybe, that he has. There wouldn’t be any 17in. shells flying round, the Germans havn’t reached that standard yet but assuming coal was the commodity under dispute; there would be hundreds of thousands of tons stacked along the country side; the Press and all other capitalistic powers would be brought to bear to discredit and undermine the mens cause, with the almost inevitable result of the men being defeated. In conclusion Mr Editor, I should like to ask one or two straight questions. , Seeing that upwards of 109,000 liavej signified their willingness to serve, why all this agitation for compulsion as that number after making liberal allowances for rejects, would supply us at our present rate of reinforcements for a poriod of three years ? Again one of the primary arguments used prior to our entering into the South African War, was that any of our countrymen could not acquire the rights of citizenship in' the Transvaal or Orange Free State, without undertaking the obligation to bear arms in the defence of their adopted Country. If this principle was a vice worthy of declaring war against in 1900 A.D. ; how has it become a virtue to-day ? Thanking you in anticipation I am Yours etc., J. MELLING.