Mr Holland and Mr Isitt.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16702, 10 December 1919, Page 8

Mr Holland and Mr Isitt.

In our leading article yesterday wo gave the reasons why we could not advise the supporters of the Reform Party in Chrißtchurch South to voto for Mr Holland. Mr Holland appears to regard this as a poor return for his services as Mayor, but tlicro are obvious limitations to tho extent to which an appeal to those services is valid. Mr Holland, ns wo said yesterday, has himself put his opinions and his scrvicea out of court, first, by declaring that tho Reform voters are the friends of tho policy of making the wealthy man wealthier and tho poor man poorer, and second, by declaring that lie will support Sir Josoph Word if Sir Joseph, who is to receive tho support of Mr Holland's party, tho official Labour Party, moves against the Government. Mr Holland says that ho ivill not sujv port Sir Josoph :n office if lie is dependent upon the votes of tho official Labour Party. For our part we cannot perceive why, in that case, ho should be willing to assist the Labour members in putting Sir Joseph in if the opportunity should arise. It is not true that wo have expressed a preference for Mr Howard: we said we could not see any grounds why either candidate should bo preferred to the other. Since Mr Holland is quito content to dispense with tho support of "Tho Press"—as doubtless ho is content to dispense with tho support of the Reform voters whom he branded as lovers of a peculiarly cruel scheme of society and government—we wonder that ho should trouble himself over what ho calls our ''unaccountable" attitude. If Mr Holland really desires further enlightenment, however, we advise him to study with care tho statement in which Mr Isitt last night explained his position, and to reflect upon the difference between Mr Isitt's attitude and his own. Mr IsHl, jut wo nndcrstand him, will vote for Sir Joseph Ward if Sir Joseph has a majority exclusive of the membere of Mr Holland's official Labour Party. This, of course, Mr Isitt is clearly entitled to do—although we need hardly say that Sir Josoph Ward himself recognises that ho cannot hope for a majority. But Mr Isitt wenl on to say: " If he [Sir Joseph] gained his majority "by depending on Holland, Somple, "and Co., I should not vote. I will " not vote the Liberal Party into power " to bo dependent on tho dictation of " on extreme party that is disloyal and " Bolshevistic." Now this is exactly whore Mr Isitt differs from Mr Holland. Mr Holland, and Mr Ilusscll and Dr. Thacker havo said that they will vote Sir Joseph into power with or without tho aid of the Labour Party. Mr Isitt is not gjvea to convocation, ud when

j lie speaks of Holland, Serople, and Co ] he can only mean the official Labou j Party, of which Mr Semple is only cn member like the other 40 odd who at J standing in other districts. Ho npnai j ently realises that between joining tli j Labour Party to put Sir Joseph in. an j joining them to keep him in. there i no difference for a man of principle an j clear understanding. Mr Holland an j Mr I'ussell and Dr. Thacker eridentl do not realise this. Mr Isitt's explanii ; tinn of his position, if we have rightl understood it. makes it perfectly ens for Rff-.rm voters to support him. Who Mr Holland or Mr Russell can mak . tho same (lc.laration as Mr Tsitt>namcly. that they will not rote for Si Jos?ph "Ward if the election does no ;;ivo him a majority independent of th f/.-i'jour Party—it will he possible fo j lie-formers to support thorn, too.