THE LABOURERS' UNION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17324, 25 May 1918, Page 14

THE LABOURERS' UNION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—l see in your issue of yesterday a letter m whioh Mr MacManus attacks me. Let mo inform him that he neither knows me, nor does he know anything about the subject in dispute between mo and his friend Mr M'Allen. When the incident took place concerning which I have charged Mr M'Allen, Mr MacManus was in France, so that he knows only what someono else has told him. Why does that someone hide behind him? Is he not manly enough to write himself and put his name to Ins letter? Why did Mr MacManus not tell that someone to write himself? It is strange that, in mentioning his friend's record, Mr MacManus said nothing about that friend's Labour record. To suggest that I am attacking Mr M'Allen because of his religion proves that Mr MacManus does not know what ho is writing about. I have been connected with labour too long to let any question of religious sect trouble me. I fear that Mr MacMamis has allowed the clique behind the Trades Hall doors to use him as a tool If he had been better informed he would have known that I have nothing but admiration for him. from what I have beard labourers say about him. I would advise him to hear both sides of the question before he again becomes an apologist for one.—l am, etc., St. Kilda, May 2L E Ohmrod. Sib,—Your correspondent. Mr Ormrod. accuses the Labourers' Union of being a disloyal organisation. Unfortunately for hnn, the facts are entirely against him ihe Labourers' Union is not, and never has been, affiliated to either the New Zealand Labour Party or the Federation of Labour; or, to be more explicit, a motion has never been carried affirming linking up with either party, nor has a plenny piece been paid out of the funds of the union to either party. I do not wish to infer that either of the above parties is di*vloyal. I am merely stating facts that are easily ascertainable. Is there any senso in proposing a resolution to withdraw from affiliation when a union is not affiliated? It was such a motion as was proposed by your correspondent. Not satisfied with wasting tho time of the meeting in explaining the evils of tho New Zealand Labour Party, he claimed the right to speak again after tho motion was seconded. I can assure your readers that the Labourers' Union denies no man the right of free speech; every member has the same privilege, and tho mover has the right to speak once and the right to reply.—l am, etc., May 21. Laboubeb! THE PROTESTANT POLITICAL ASSOCIATION'S ORGANISER. TO THE EDITOB. Sib, —It has given me much pleasure to road your condemnation of Mr Howard Elliott's truly atrocious slander (for which no apology could atone), and of its condonation by the Protestant Political Association, and, most regrettably, by many Protestant clergy. Tho stirring up of sectarian strife should be abhorrent to most people. I om afraid it is not, or the Protestant Political Association would not number so many adherents. I have always regarded it as needless and wholly mischievous ; —thus even before the Howard Elliott scandal I refrained from attending any of the meetings called under its name. What_ we all nc>od_ is not aeal for Protestanism or Catholicism, but vital Christian belief and consistent Christian practice. But granted that there many be room for difference of opinion as to the work of the Protestant Political Association, there should, among decent-minded people, bo nono as to Mr Howard Elliott's conduct in tho slander ease. It is strange that clorfy of tho Presbyterian and other P rote stint churches do not 6ee what discredit, thev are bringing on their denominations by their continued patronage of Mr Elliott.— I am, etc., A Protestant Woman Dunedin, May 22.