Evening Post. MONDAY. DECEMBER 8, 1919. SOUTH & CENTRAL SEATS

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 137, 8 December 1919, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY. DECEMBER 8, 1919. SOUTH & CENTRAL SEATS

In two of the Wellington city electorates good luck or good management has avoided the embarrassment and the danger with which the electors in the other city constituencies are confronted. In Wellington North and Wellington East the old quarrel between Liberals and Reformers has been renewed under conditions which are causing serious searchings of heart to many a conscientious elector. The old party prejudices and the old party loyalties are still strong, and under normal conditions they might have been relied upon to revert complacently to the alignment of 1914. But the1 possibility that a straight party vote may result in the -gross misrepresentation of the electorate by a revolutionary Labour candidate, has set many of the electors in these districts considering a question which in the old days did not ■seriously affect the voting of the loyal adherents of a party, viz., which of the non-revolutionary candidates has the best chance of success. In these and other districts similarly situated we trust that this question will be carefully considered by Reformers and Liberals alike, and that a higher loyalty .than that of party will save the constituencies from misrepresentation and the country from a serious danger. But in Wellington South and Wellington Central the elector is lucky in not being embarrassed by any such conflict of loyalties. The issue between reasonable progress and reckless revolution, between patriotism and antipatriotism, between the constitutional government of a free people and the despotic domination of a single class, is presented in the clearest possible form.

In Wellington South, LieutenantColonel Mitchell stands as an Independent candidate against Mr. Semple, to whom the apathy of the Government and of the electors made a present of the seat at the by-election last year. In the strict party sense, represented by the pricking of the whips' cards, the election of Mr. Semple in succession to the late Mr. Hindmarsh involved no change, but in reality the result was a striking triumph for revolutionary Labour, a -damaging blow for the Government, and a grave affront to the patriotism of the country. Like Mr. Semple, Mr. Hindmarsh was a Labour man, but in every other respect they were politically as far a-s the poles asunder. Mr. Hindmarsh was positive and constructive, loyal, and patriotic. He knew that a country could not protect itself by speeches and resolutions, and that under the present conditions of the world any liberty for which men are not prepared to .fight cannot last long. Seeing in Germany the ruthless enemy of every vestige of liberty that the world possesses, Mr. Hindmarsh backed the King against the Kaiser throughout the great struggle, and did not suggest that truckling to the Prussian autocracy was the best way of securing our liberties. In all these respects Mr. Hindmarsh's views were anathema to Mr. Semple, for whom the glories of the Red Flag appear to supersede all the petty distinguishing marks of national patriotism. In domestic politics the sober,' responsible, and constructive methods, of Mr. Hindmarsh were equally opposed to the rash, destructive, and revolutionary style of his successor. The kind of Labour that won Wellington South at the by-election made the event of far greater significance than tho ordinary gain or loss of a seat.

The Wellington South electors have now the opportunity of clearing their .patriotism from the reproach which their ■apathy passed upon it at the by-election, and the opportunity is presented in an exceptionally attractive guise. The issue of Reform versus Liberalism is completely avoided, not merely because there is only one candidate opposed to the representative of Labour, but because the candidate wears no party label at all. Cotoie-t Mitchell «, tt i^ before the dectors of -Wellington South neither as *"

Liberal nor as a Reformer, but as an Independent. The most bigoted adherent of Reform or Liberalism can therefore vote for Colonel Mitchell without straining his party loyalty. At the same time, on the positive side the Independent candidate makes an irresistible appeal to the patriotism of the constituency. Though a novice in politics, Colonel Mitchell has a record in public service which few, if any, of tho candidates now before the constituencies have surpassed. He is no more a "militarist" than a party hack. He attained great distinction and popularity •in the warfare of our citizens' army against the Hun. He will carry the marks of the warfare to the grave, but, serious as his wounds were, he refused to be retired, and he completed at the base a term which his injuries would not permit him to complete in the trenches. To eulogise the courage, the loyalty, and the public spirit of a man with such a record would be a sheer waste of words. In his political campaign, Colonel Mitchell has also shown a straightforwardness, a solid common-sense, a superiority to catchwords, a shrewd humour, and a readiness to take—and to return—punishment which admirably supplement his military record. A better representative at such a time as this no patriotic constituency could desire.

Of Wellington Central -we have left ourselves little space to speak. There, also, the issue is clear. In the person of Mr. Pirani, a political veteran has come forward to fight one of the hardest battles of the present campaign. A Reformer who declines to vote for Mr. Pirani because he calls himself a Liberal will personally deserve his share of whatever the victory of revolutionary Labour may involve. If Wellington South presents the issue of patriotism in the plainest possible fashion, 'Wellington Central does as much for the issue of law and order. i No minute examination of the comprehensive and interesting address which Mr. Pirani published in our columns on Saturday should be needed to convince every lawabiding elector in Wellington Central of his duty. Tile bare fact that Mr. Pirani iras compelled to publish his views m this way should suffice for this purpose. Having teen refused a failhearing in the constituency on four successive occasions by the organised rowdyism of Labour partisans, Mr. Pirani has had to address the electors in print. Is the constituency prepared to assert the rights of free speech and fair play, which are of the essence of democracy, or will it be dragooned into subjection by the lawless violence which deliberately silences an opponent? There is surely only ono answer possible.