FARMERS' UNION AND POLITICS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 57, 1 December 1919, Page 8

FARMERS' UNION AND POLITICS

QUESTION OF POLICY (Special Correspondent./ Palmerston North, November 20. At Uw hjoptwiilxT Hireling of (ho Maiiawitii Siily-Provincinl .Branch of tho Nmv Zealand Fanners' Union, hold at Palm erston North, Mr. Evelyn Maedonald, delegate from To Jloro Branch, drought up a policy which ho hail evolved for (ho union as a guide in mat tore political. A small committee was set up to go into t'je matter of a policy with Mr. Mac(imiald as a member. The committee sj.it for a short t:ino while the 'branch was also silting, and eventually brought up a report approving u[ the policy which Mr.'Macdonald had enunciated going before Hii! various brandies as a remit which would bo discussed and amended or altered before going to tho Dominion Conference for final adoption. Mr. M.icdonald, who is now standing as a candidate for the. Otnki seat, issued the policy in tho sha.po of « manifesto, under _ the Leadings "Farmers' Polit'eal Policy," "Watchwords: 'Progress' and 'Co-operation'," and signed the document "Evelyn Maedonald, for Coinmittco Mumwatu Sub-Provincial Executive Farmer:;' Union."

At the meeting of the, Sub-Provinc'ial Executive held at Palmerston North on Saturday the. folloirinj; remit mi the iii.-J.tcr vns received from the Pnrapuvnuinu Branch :-"That this brnncli em phatically censures tlio SUnnwntu SubI'rovincial Executive, for adopting , the policy signed and put forward by Sir. Evelyn Jl'ncdonald as tho policy of tlie I'lirmers' Union, because 'lie policy has not been discussed by the branches, and the publication of the ™ine before being properly considered must bo damaging to tho Farmers* Union."

Letters were also received from tho Palineiston North and Pitekakariki brandies to the same effect.

Sir. Macdoimld' sa : .d that both the remit and tho letters . had arisen out of n lnirapprehensxm. He- had no intention of using tho Fanners' Iniinii in his political contest. He did not ask and did not expect any assistance from tlie union in connection with his campaign. The policy was-his own, until it was'adopted by the Farmers' Union, and he was quite aware of the fact that until the policy had been adopted ]>y tho branches mid finally been before tho Dominion executive the union was not responsible for it. Mr. Field, hi* opponent for the Otaki seat, hail complained that he (Mr. Slacdonnld) hiul been making- use of the Farmers' Union platform in his election campaign, but this was not so. Ho had been careful lo toll the people that the policy was not that.of tho Farmeivs' Union, 'as it had not been finally adopted by either the brunches or tho executive.

The chairman pointed out that tlio word "adopted" had been used when it should not have boon, and this was misleading.

Sir. Mncdonnld replied that ho had been under tho impression that the word "adopted" had been used when his motion approving of the platform had been carried at the last meeting. He again wished to point out that he did iiot"ask 10r assistance from the union in his campaign, hut he certainly did not expect hostility from that source. Ho had refilled the statement made by Mr. Field through the newspapers. ' Mr. ('.. J. Ilnrknesa (Ohaii) charged Sir Sfaedonii'.d with putting forward tho document as having been adapted by the uniun. This was a deliberate misstatement.

Mr. Maedonald said that lie Knew Hint his iilntrorm coihrt not become Hie policy nf Hie union until i(- had been licfor'e Hie branches anil the executive, and had Iv'cn finally passed bv the Dominion Confe.ivnee, ivhieh would not sit for another nine months.

Srr. N. P. Neilson (Tiakitnliunn) pointed out that,it the last mooting Mr Miirilonald had slated that he had no intention of. using (he platform, as the policy of the Fanners' Union, and it was pnclieal'.v on that understandim: that tho. mooting decided to have it printed and circulated amongst members of branches.

Mr. llnrkness took strong exception to the action of Mr. Miicdonahl all IhroiM'li Ho was not treating it as «. nolilicufoi' nersoiial mailer, but it was an insult to the union and to the president for any member lo issue such a circular under his own nnine. anil ho could not help feolinir I hat the union hao been exnloitcd.

Mr. V. Hnbbard (Tiriiea) Ihonslit that fhn whole (hill!,' was a storm in a Iranot. The- remit from tlio I'lirapamiiiiiii branch \v:H •-piite out of order, as Ihe Farmers' Inioii had not luiop'.ed the nolicv.

Mr. 0. 1 , . T.yni-h nVrapnrnumiO said thill the niiillcr hiid never lic-'ii properly lirou-rlil bvln-c Ihr- sub-provincial bnineli. At i 1 1 , ., nii't'liiit' ol'.lhe. special coiiiiiiillep set up Id kii Hiroiiuhl the platform inI roil need liv Mr. Min'doiwld, ho hud moved in Hie ciiTiMion of liiivin;; it win led for '.'oii-idcnilion of meinlier?. Now it was jjiviMi out lo the pulilie »s the nlatfonn. of Iho union, whereas it was onlv that, of Mr.'Mardonald. wlji'Ji hnd I'orliiinlv nnr been adoliled by the union. To publish it in I he manner that Mr. Macdoniild had was In simply make a laiizhinK si nek of the executive Tlio Pnranaramiiu branch had carried the remit unanimously, ivhilo tlio Levin

hranch had accided that nothing should be. done in the matter until it had been further considered. Mr. Macdonald had disavowed anything to do with tho publication of tho document, but he would lileo to know who gave instructions for tho Drintin? of it. Mr. Macdonaltf had written to the "'Farmers' Union Advocate," objecting to his name having been left out when it published tho platform, as he was the. author of it. In that caso ho would like io know where the rest of the committee came, in. Mr. Mncdonald had published a statement in the uaner which was, to say the least of. it. lnislpnilin , .'. After considerable discussion had taken place as to what had occurred ai: tho iirst meeting of tho special committee when'.Mr. Macdonald's policy came up for discussion, Mr. Hubbard said that while he did not altogether disagree . with the policy put fnnvml bv Mr. Mnnlonold, he considered thrtt tho public had been misled by its publication, and by the innuendo that it was tho policy of the union. That was absolutely wrong and mislead.iir. Afpcdoiinld, in replying, said that the whole thing was confusion worso confounded, and what had been sakHhat day had done more harm to tho Farmers' "Union than anything that had previously occurred could have done. He claimed that he had not received honourable treatment. He was asked at a conference held at Levin to appoint a committco to draft a policy for the union, and Mr. Monk had suggested fhat lie should act as convener. Ho endeavoured to get tho committee together on several occasions, but could not do so. and ho finally drafted the policy himself. Eventually Mr. Harknoss eamo in and had also drafted a policy wliicli in many resnects resembled his owu. This ho had again put before tho committee at the last meeting at Palmerston, when he understood that it was adopted, and would be sent out to other branches for their approval. .Ho denied ever having put tho policy forward as his own. The fact was that ho had come out as a Liberal, and this was cast up against him by Mr. Field; who inferred that lie was using the policy, in a misleading manner to further his campaign. Tho chairman pointed out that Mr. JiV-lnnai'l h»d Mel the first meeting of tho executive that ho would use the jKilicy at the election whether it was adopted or not. Mr. Lynch contended that tho whole nii=chiif had been done by Mr. Macdonald sending out the policy in the form he had done.

After a further ncrimonions discussion it was resolved on tho motion of Sir. Lynch:—"That consideration of the policy of tho union be deferred, and that tho committee at present in existence lie discharged; that a neiv committee lie set up to draw up a policy and consider the same before being sent out to the various branches."

Sir. Lynch said that under the circumstances he would withdraw the, remit sent forward by the Parapa'vaumu branch, and the matter dropped.