MR. BRANDON'S CHAIRMAN

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 45, 21 February 1918, Page 8

MR. BRANDON'S CHAIRMAN

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Fair play is bonny play. I do nit suppose for a moment that you deliberately wish to misconstrue what I said at Mr. Brandon's meeting on Monday last, so will not apologise for asking you to insert this letter.

In your Jeading article of last night you state that "I actually gave as areason for rejecting the Government choice that, unlike the late member, Mr. Luke iSa prohibitionist." , Now, the following is in-effect what I did say (I have my notes here) :—"Four thousand five; hundred people voted for Mr. Herdman at the last election, or 1000 more than both o?. the other candidates put together; Mr. Herdman's views were well-known. He was a staunch Reformer; he was strongly in favour of compulsory military, training; he was not a prohibitionist,; he held particularly broad-minded and tolerant views on most'o'f the social questions of the day; he ' was such a genuine, honest man that he hid nothing. His constituents knew him thoroughly, and they' gave him this overwhelming majority, thereby signalising their approval of his views. Surely, :n selecting a candidate to succeed him, the electors had a right to expect Mr.'Massey would choose a man with similar views, as they were so evidently the views of the constituency: My. Luke was chosen—Mr. Luke, the very antithesis of Mr. Herdman—first a-Liberal,'thea an Independent, latterly a Reformer. He held extreme views on the liquor question, whatever he is now; he had been a doubtful supporter of even compulsory training. He couldn't even stand for boxing in the Town Hall, and so far as the sporting bodies are concerned—who, by the way, had always had Mr. Herdman's support and sympathy—Mr. Luke is, or was (because it is-hard to say what Mr. Luke will be the day after to--mcrrowj, in veiled antagonism"—and so on.

I think you will admit that your interpretation in last night's leader is somewhat overdrawn. Your suggestion of a very dangerous reaction against the influences creating the breach, etc.—in other words, a policy of reprisals—is surely unworthy of a journal of your high standing. ■

Of tho party vote in the district, Mr. Brandon has 1 no one against him; Mr. Luke has many hundreds. It is quite obvious who could most easily defeat the vote we all fear. I would suggest you appeal to Mr. Luke's patriotism, ask him to retire, and make a certainty for the National Government.—l am, | A. E. WHYTE. 21st February. [We are sorry if by selecting one of what Mr. Whyte regards as Mr. Luko's many disqualifications we attached to it a greater importance than he meant it to carry. The reason 'for our selection of the point in question was that it touched an issue which is a constantly-disturbing factor in elections, and that Mr. Whyte's treatment of the subject differed from Mr. Brandon's. The suggestion that Mr. Luke retire is a "tv quoque" not to be taken seriously. He was the first in the field; he was approved by a much more representative meeting of the party than those who brought out Mr. Brandon; he has support of the. Government; and his chances of:success are, we submit, better than Mr. Brandon's. As to the alleged unworthiness of our suggestion that the special interests which are dividing the party in the electorate and threaten the loss of the seat may provoke a dangerous reaction, we can only s&y we see no virtue in blinking plain facts and no unworthiness in facing them.— Ed.]