TIN HARE RACING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21580, 27 February 1932, Page 11

TIN HARE RACING

MR LANG’S ALLEGED INTEREST A REPLY TO CRITICS (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) SYDNEY, February 26. (Received Feb. 26, at 9 p.m.) In the Legislative Assembly to-day, the Premier (Mr J. T. Lang) replied to critics concerning his official connection with tin hare interests. He declared that he did not know and had never seen or spoken to Judge Swindell, and if that gentleman visited the Premier’s- department it was without his knowledge. Mr Lang contended that a section of the press executives which were interested in tin hare shares were responsible for the propaganda against the Government because licenses for tin hare courses were not granted to their particular ventures. Mr Lang described them as “ bucketshop ” newspaper executives, who, with certain members of the Opposition Party, haunted such places as Tattersall’s .Club. He went on to say that there was a fund in existence in Sydney to which the Australian Jockey Club and other proprietary interests subscribed to have tin hare racing banned. It was a' secret fund for the purpose of bribing members of the Labour Party, but to their eternal credit it was still lying idle. If a Royal Commission were granted, would it inquire into the origin of this fund or might it not with advantage inquire into the origin of the fund that was built up by banks and insurance companies at the last election to fight the Labour Party? Mr Lang added that he saw no reason for an inquiry except perhaps if members of the Opposition were prepared to make definite charges of corruption, instead of relying on interested press propaganda. Mr Lang came in for some severe criticism in the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday when Mr Stevens, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the absence of Mr Bavin through ill-health, described the Premier’s speech on Tuesday as more or less in the nature of political showmanship. The Premier’s only stock-in-trade was the widow, the orphan, and the workless, but the fact remained that while t],ie Government found little time to deal with the main problems of the day—namely, the financial drift, vast unemployment, industrial turmoil, and poverty—it was very much concerned about restoring licenses to tin hare companies, which were likely to earn prodigious profits and smelt to heaven of political trickery and corruption. The public was entitled to know why the Premier had suddenly taken an intimate interest in this tin hare business. It was 'common knowledge that Judge Swindell, an American importation, had easy access to the Premier’s department. A section of the press had alleged that 20,000 shares in two tin hare 1 companies had already been contributed to the Labour Party’s funds, and that further favours were being bestowed as the result of intervention by Judge Swindell, who seemed to have remarkable influence upon the Premier. The whole thing reeked with suspicion. Why did not the Premier see fit to defend his honour and the honour of his Government, this Government which had grated so much about the poor and needy? Mr Stevens challenged the Premier to sue the newspapers which were responsible for the cha.rges of corruption. , CHALLENGE TO MR LANG. SYDNEY, February 26. (Received Feb. 26, at 11.30 p.m.) Mr Stevens, the Deputy Leader of the State Opposition, was prevented from replying to the Premier to-day on the tin hare allegations. Accordingly Mr Stevens has issued a statement challenging the Premier to issue a writ against him in regard to his observations on corruption, and he promises not to plead parliamentary privilege in open court. Mr Stevens, when he was about to answer Mr Lang’s denials in the Assembly to-day, was gagged, as also were other members of the Opposition.