LABOUR PARTY AND THE CUT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18847, 9 April 1931, Page 5

LABOUR PARTY AND THE CUT.

To the Editor of the " Timaru Herald.” Sir.—l am wondering how it comes about that a letter written by a resident in Wellington, on a subject which is of no greater interest to the people of South Canterbury, than to people in other parts of the Dominion, should find its way into the columns of “The Herald.” The only reason that I can give for this, is that the letter in question is a mere piece of propaganda, and this is borne out by the fact that it is honeycombed with inaccuracies and distortions of the truth. The writer of the letter in question pretends to be a civil servant, and, if he is what he claims to be, he must know that what he wrote was bound to mislead your readers, for, he says the Labour Party, by stonewalling were duping the public servants and the workers. Now, “Civil Servant” must know that the members of that Party were requested by both public servants and workers to oppose the proposed salary cut, and that they each and all promised to do so to the last ditch. Why did he not tell the truth on this point? He then states that the Labour Party, by its stonewalling intended to dupe the public servants and workers into the belief that, had a Labour Government been in office, there would have been ho reduction of wages. The fact is that the Labour Party made it quite clear that its method of balancing the Budget, had it been in power, would have been to draw the needed money from luxury incomes, and not from the wages of poorly paid workers. As the Labour Party’s policy on this point was well known to all, why did “Civil Servant” pretend that he never heard of it? And why did he try to mislead your readers by his pretence? He next makes a very feeble endeavour to save the face of Mr Coates, who voted against his own convictions. Mr Coates was in favour of leaving untouched the salaries of married men under £300; but he voted against this, and went the whole hog with Mr Forbes, because, as “Civil Servant” says, had he supported his own views by his vote, he would have put Mr Holland into office. Now, the truth is that, Mr Holland appealed to Mr Coates to bring forward his amendment against the proposal to reduce the salaries of married men, under £3OO, and told him that if he did so the Labour Party would put him into office. Why did your correspondent not tell the truth on this point? He next charges the Labour Party with having once again sacrificed the public service, for the sake of political advantage. Here it is implied that the Labour Party on some previous occasion betrayed the public service; but I will defy “Civil Servant” to prove that there has been any sacrifice of the public servants, either now or on any previous occasion, except by the parties he seems to think so much of. The Labour Party did what it undertook to do, and the civil service, almost to a man are quite satisfied with them for what they did. It may be that the higher paid men, who dreaded a steeply graduated cut on high salaries, are rejoicing that they have escaped with only the ten per cent, cut, and are thankful to Mr Coates for so nobly coming to their rescue by supporting Mr Forbes in taking from the lower paid men and women less than they can afford, without feeling the pinch. It may be. that “Civil Servant” is one of those highly paid men, who have got off lightly, and that, he is now showing his appreciation by coming out as a Tory propagandist. But, he does not realise that in drawing attention to Mr Coates’s peculiar act, he has done more to tarnish Mr Coates as a man, and as a politician than Mr Coates will ever thank him for.—l am, i etC ' > DINORNIS. Timaru, April 8.