OAMARU BY-ELECTION

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 81, 5 April 1923, Page 5

OAMARU BY-ELECTION

NO LABOUR CANDIDATE ON THIS OCCASION.

CHRISTCHURCH, 4th April.

At the Labour Party's conference, reference was made to the position at Oaniaru. The' matter came up in connection witji the following, motion moved by Mr. H. Holland: "That it be an instruction to the incoming «x----ecutive to take sterJ6 to organise branches of the party in all constituencies uncontested last December, and in which branches at present do not exist." '

Mr. Holland drew attention to a statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Macpherson that "any candidate in Labour interests would be instigated; only through the auepices of the Reform Party." He was strongly of opinion that the Labour Party should have had a candidate in the field at Oamnru last December, but that had not been done, and now they were having a second fight arising out of a technicality he did not think they should, enter into it. He was' satisfied Mr. Macpherson bad been properly elected- in December, but that did not justify the foolish statement made by Mr. Macpherson. which was an insult to every man and woman in the Labour movement. When Labour entered the field in any electorate itentered in opposition to both the Reform and Liberal parties, and would not come in or stay out at the instigation of either of them.- Besides, a statement like that came with somewhat bad grace from Mr. Macpherson, whose record in the short session .was hardly that of an opponent of the i Government. When Labour' moved the first no-confidence motion on 7th February by challenging the Government's nomination for the Speakership. and the voting was 61 to 17 in favour of the Government, Mr. Macphwrson was one of the 61.. He therefore cast his first vote to eive the Government- a Speaker from the ranks of the Opposition, 'and therefore to strengthen the Government's position to that orient, nnd consequently to defeat the will of tie people expressed at the br.llot-l'ox. When, oii 16th February, Labour moved a second no-con faience motion in the form of an'amendment to Mr. Wilford'a amendment to the -Address-in-Renlv. Mr. "Macrjheraon was one of those who hastened from the Chamber to avoid voting iia'iiinst t.lie Government, wliicli \v;is equivalent to volinp- for the Government. When, on 17th Febniarv.. Labour oupneecl Air. Massey's adjournment motion, Mr. M-icpiiei'son vvis one of the 45 who v-nled '"n sun-joH of Mr.-Mussev. Thereio'o. Mr. MiiijulitM'son three tipiu? out of four h«l|W'Mi\ Jlwoy ii» tlio'fpw d»ys p{ the short session, and in tin

light of the fundamentals it made no difference whether Mr. Macphereon or Mr. Lee was elected. In either case Mr. Massey had a supporter against Labour. What they had to see was that a branch of the party was formed in the electorate, and a candidate placed in the field at the next election.

Mr. Holland's remarks were unanimously received, and it was .generally agreed there should -be no participation in the present contest, but that the Oamaru electorate be organised for future elections.