ALLEGED THREAT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXI, Issue 139, 14 May 1941, Page 8

ALLEGED THREAT.

LABOUR BODIES REPLY. (Press Assn.) WELLINGTON, May 14. In reply to the statements in respect of alleged intimidation (concerning .Mr H. L. Nathan, a candidate for the II ellington Harboin Board), the Labour Representation Committee has issued the iollowing: “It is hardly credible, in view oT tlie Labour Representation Committee's attitude to freedom ol expression and speech, -that supporters of the Labour Party would adopt the tactics alleged in tlie statements referred to. It is regretted that the Mayor and other Citizens’ Committee candidates were not more specific in their statements. The Labour Representation Committee could then have investigated the matter and replied. In view of the circumstances, the Labour Representation Committee cannot answer the statements, as they are not aware of the circumstances. If the statements made are correct and the facts are as stated, then the Wellington Labour Representation Committee definitely dissociates itself from the actions of the persons concerned. For tlie reasons as stated above, wo have, and do. stand tor the freedom of the individual and would not tolerate such alleged actions for one moment.” TRADES COUNCIL STATEMENT.

Commenting on the allegation by Mr Nathan that he had been intimidated by five trades union officials, the Wellington Trades Union Council to-day gave its version of the affair. It said that on Friday morning Mr Nathan was reported as having made a very vicious suggestion to tlie effect that Labour candidates, who were also trade union secretaries, would not carry out their duties impartially, as they had to bow to the dictates of their unions. Mr Nathan was exceedingly careful not to refer to any individual candidate. Had he done so, the necessary steps would have been promptly taken. Only a baseless and ambiguous charge had been made. The utter unfairness of Mr Nathan's statement and its complete absurdity would be apparent to every fair-minded person. When there was borne in mind the important part tiades unionists and officials were taking in the present conflict, I lie statement caused considerable resentment among trades unionists. The matter went beyond local polities and was a grave leflection on the integrity of a largo section of tlie community. It. was felt that if the statement bad been made without fully realising the unfairness of it and without due regard to the actual facts, an opportunity should lie given Mr Nathan to act uprightly after bearing representations. With his consent, the Trades Council adds, an interview was arranged to suit iiis convenience. Two delegates were to have seen him but, in the interim, the resentment had grown and three others attended. Mr Nathan told the interviews that lie would not listen to any comment on the report nor to any protest regarding it. He imperiously ordered tlie representatives from the room and acted in a most high-handed manner. In anticipation of the fact that Mr Nathan might probably act in this manner, a written protest had been prepared and this was read to him despite his repealed interruptions. He then calmed down sufficiently to enable the representatives to attempt to reason with him. He was requested either to admit that he had spoken hastily or unfairly, or to openly and publicly accuse any Labour candidate of malpractice in order that the matter could be cleared up in a. Court of law. Mr Nathan refused to adopt either course and was then thanked for tlie interview and the delegation left. There were no threats of force made. It was felt that a sense of propriety and fair play would lead Mr Nathan to right a palpable wrong but, unfortunately, this was not so. Apparently tlie episode had been circulated in a distorted form. It was obvious it was to this interview that Mr Hislop referred in a rather sensational and “darksome” manner. It was apparent that he desired to cloak the matter in an air of mystery, withholding facts, and to place an entirely wrong construction on the affair. The statement says: “We welcome any inquiry. IVe suggest that Mr Hislop should' concern himself with correcting untrue and friction-making statements of a colleague rather than attempt to use it to his advantage. Since Friday he has had ail opportunity of checking up on the lacts, but has failed to do so. He rather chooses to make capital from unfounded rumours and to use them by innuendo.”

See “Serious Allegations.”—Page 7