MID-CANTERBURY ELECTORATE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22443, 2 July 1938, Page 14

MID-CANTERBURY ELECTORATE

FAILURE TO SELECT CANDIDATE

RESPONSIBILITY DENIED BY MR D. JONES

BRANCH BLAMED FOR ABORTIVE MEETING

“The meeting of delegates from branches of the National Party in the Mid-Canterbury electorate on T 1 ursday evening was made abortive because the Ashburton branch had taken a show of hands and not a secret ballot and had also failed to check the persons present to ascertain if they were members,’’ said Mr David Jones in an interview with “The Press” last evening.

Mr Jones was not present at the meeting at Rakaia the previous evening, when 70 delegates from the 11 branches of the National Party in the electorate decided to call for fresh nominations for the selection of a candidate to oppose Mr H. E. Herring, M.P. He returned to Wellington yesterday and. was interviewed at the railway station. Persistent reports throughout the electorate and the province that ne was determined to stand for the seat, if the National Party ballot went against him, were referred to Mr Jones.

“I have not given a thought to that, up to the present,” Mr Jones replied. Secret Ballot Stipulated The report of Thursday’s meeting did not disclose the true position, said Mr Jones. The “official” report stated: “At a meeting of chairmen of the branches with Messrs Jones and Lyons at Ashburton on Monday of last week, it was agreed that the system to be adopted at the conference of delegates last evening should be on the basis of one vote for each branch and, one for every 50 members or part of 50 members of each branch.”

“The agreement contained the important provision that all the branches had to take a secret ballot,” said Mr Jones, “and the failure of the Ashburton branch to do that and also to make certain that every person present when the ballot was taken was a member of the party made the whole thing fall to the ground. The meeting was made abortive on that score alone.” Mutilated Telegram He said he mentioned this only because the official who gave the report brought in his name as if he (Mr Jones) were the person responsible for the failure. Why was the statement that “Mr Jones later circularised the chairmen of the branches concerning the wording of a telegram from the Dominion executive of the party, which was placed before the meeting on Monday of last week” dragged in? “That statement had nothing to do with the meeting on Thursday. If it did, why did the official not admit that he now has the correct copy of the telegram. This copy proves that the telegram before the meeting on Monday of last week was not a true copy of the one sent by the Dominion executive. It has not yet been before the executive.”