ODDFELLOWSHIP.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16326, 23 August 1913, Page 7

ODDFELLOWSHIP.

. TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —T am sorry to find that “ Contributor ” for the second time attempts to misrepresent consolidation, tho greatest question that lias ever been before tho Friendly Societies in tho dominion. Tho importanco of the question to thousands of members, and many more thousands of their dependents, leads mo to cravo your indulgence again. : It is absolutely essential to tho final judgment of the groat body of the public, who are 'financially interested in this problem, that they should bo assured of the fact that tho pros and cons are being placed before them, in a straightforward manner. Granting that, what must they think of tliq selfcondemned “Contributor,” who in his last letter admitted that he was fully aware of all the facts I had, to adduce in my previous letter in order to correct the misrepresentations he had* made in his original article P Can members afford to bo influenced by an advocate who is guilty of such tactics? “Contributor” says I havo not disproved a single statement mado by him. Poor “ Contributor!” Ho said all the funds' would go to Wellington. I replied (and “Contributor ” subsequently admitted that ho knew it) that every penny could be invested locally if it suited tlio end the opposition havo in-view, viz., to depreciate the value of membership of the New Zealand branch. What 'should the Lodges do with trustees who are so negligent in the discharge of tho duties they owe to their district as to pay all central contributions in cash, when local members might have had. the benefit of the money to build a homo and the resulting securities, or others, might have been , sent to Wellington in lieu of the cash? Surely the remedy is patent to all Lodges. “ Contributor” said, to meet these Grand Lodge levies (which, interpreted by ordinary members, means New Zealand Branch levies) Auckland paid 4s per member and ■ North Canterbury 3s (Id per member. I replied that tho Grand Lodge levies for management expenses in 1911 were actually 22<1 per member. And if “Contributor” denies that his first reference did not open up the way for grave misrepresentation, why did he in that place refer to “Grand