CORRESPONDENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 12 October 1928, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE

MR. HAWKEN AT CARDIFF. (To tho Editor). Sir,—Mr. Hawken, speaking at Cardiff, has made certain statements in relation to the United Party, either through ignorance or for tho purpose of deliberately mistating a position. I prefer to think it is the former. As chairman of the conference of candidates of the United Party recently held in Wellington, I feel it incumbent upon me to reply. Mr. Hawken’s first statement was: “People were told that they had a leader, but the two old hands were eliminated at the first and second ballots. Then the old members got together and got Sir Joseph Ward.’’* Error No. 1. When Sir Joseph Ward was elected leader of the Party he was elected by a majority vote of the conference, over fifty candidates exercising their votes. Tho next question was: “Why did Messrs. Wilford, Smith and Seddon not attend the conference?” Error No. 2. Messrs. Wilford and Seddon did attend the conference arid Mr. Seddon, as a son of the Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, sat on my right at the conference. It is true Mr. R. W. Smith did not attend the conference, and you, Mr. Hawken, know perfectly well the reason. The next question: “Why did the two presidents and tho secretary resign?” Mr. Hawken knows why one resigned, and if he will make a better fist of it than he has in displaying his knowledge of the United Party conference and tell it truthfully, I suggest he explain the resignation of that one. I. on the other hand, might then bo tempted to explain why Mr. Davy, previously organiser for the Reform Party, resigned his position from that Party. Next statement: Mr. Hawken said: “Sir Joseph Ward was in ill health and not a young man. It was beyond him to establish the United Party.” I remember when in tho House on one occasion one member reprimanding a Minister for being asleep during a debate. The Minister quietly arose and replied: “I am as much awake when I am asleep as you are when you are ssrake.” Sir Joseph Ward at his age is more alert and has greater ability than Mr. Haw-ken at his age or any member of his Party. Next statement: "The fighting point was the Unionist Party. During the last two years it had nearly gone out of existence and it was a pity it had gone out.” Do you remember your speech, Mr. Hawken, at the Reform delegate conference in Wellington previous to the’United Barty conference? Do you remember saying as reported in the “News letter” that the United Party did not count and the real opposition was tho Labour Party? Why the change? You realise as the people of New Zealand realise that the United Party is- a virile one and is going to provide that alternative the country at the present time is looking for. In conclusion I trust in future speeches Mr. Hawken will, at least, when making statements about the United Party, see that they are strictly in accordance with fact.—l am, etc., R. MASTERS. Stratford, October 11.