Alleged Threat to Candidate

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 114, 15 May 1941, Page 2

Alleged Threat to Candidate

COMMENT BY TRADES COUNCIL Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, May 14. Commenting on the allegations oy i.*r H. L. Nathan, a Citizens’ candidate ror the Harbour Board, that he had been intimidated by five Trades Union officials, the Wellington Trades 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 the 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 unions. “Mr Nathan was exceedingly careful not to refer to any individual candidate,” continued the Trades Council. “Had he done so the necessary steps would have been promptly taken. Only a baseless, ambiguous charge was made. The utter unfairness of Mr Nathan’s statement, and its complete absurdity will be apparent to every fair-minded person when it is borne in mind the important part trades unionists and officials are taking in the present conflict. The statement caused considerable resentment among trades unionists. The matter went beyond local politics, and was a grave reflection on the integrity of a large section of the community. “It is felt that if the statement had been made without fully realising the Unfairness of it, and without due regard to the actual facts, the opportunity should be given Mr Nathan to act Uprightly after hearing the representations. With his consent an interview was arranged to suit his convenience. Two delegates were to have seen him, but in the interim resentment had grown and three others attended. Mr Nathan told the interviewers that he would not listen to any comment on the report, nor any protest regarding it. He imperiously ordered the representatives from the room, and acted ip 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 repeated interruptions. He then calmed down sufficiently to enable the representatives to attempt to reason with him. He was requested either honestly to admit 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. He was then thanked for the interview and the delegation left. There \yerejiw> threats of force made. It was frfFtjfikt a sense of propriety and fair play wajpcl lead Mr Nathan to rig&t a palfope wrong, but unfortunately this was not so. Apparently the episode had been circulated in a distorted form.

“It was obvious that it was to this interview that Mr T. C. A. Hislon referred in a rather sensational ancl darksome manner. It was apparent that he desired to cloak the matter in an air of mystery, withholding the facts, and place an entirely wrong construction on the affair.”

Tho statement says: “We welcome any inquiry. We suggest that Mr Hislop should concern himself with correcting the untrue and friction-making statement of his colleague rather than attempt to use it to his advantage. Since Friday he has had an opportunity of checking up on the facts, but has failed to do so. He rather chooses to make capital from unfounded rumours and use them by innuendo.”

LABOUR COMMITTEE’® STATEMENT Per Press Association. WELLILNGTON, May 14. In a reply to statements in respect of alleged intimidation, the Labour Representation Committee made the following statement: — “It is hardly credible, in view of the Labour Representation Committee’s attitude to freedom of expression and speech, that supporters of the Labour Party would adopt tactics alleged in the statements referred to. It is regretted that the mayor and other citizens’ 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. As stated above, we have, and do, stand for freedom of the individual, and would not tolerate the alleged actions for one moment.”