The Evening Star THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1930. THE INVERCARGILL SEAT.

Evening Star, Issue 20556, 7 August 1930, Page 10

The Evening Star THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1930. THE INVERCARGILL SEAT.

It has become fashionable among a section of the Reform Party m Parliament to enlarge on what they are pleased to call the compact between the other two parties. Last night Mr Harris went further than his colleagues by declaring that it was pathetic to see hpw Labour members went into the lobby at the crack of the Government whip. It would be. more accurate to say that they vote as they do at the crack of the Labour whip, if any. When the United Party took office Mr Holland stated unequivocally that his party would nob vote to replace Reform in power. There have been no signs of any disposition to deviate from this decision, and under the circumstances any compact with, the Government would appear superfluous. But its existence continues to be assumed by Opposition critics, and it has now been reproduced as responsible for Labour merely looking on at tho Invercargill by-election, while the compact has been elevated to the status of an alliance. Reform politicians are exhibiting great concern for Labour supporters in the electorates, informing them in effect that they have been betrayed by their representatives in Parliament, and by its organising chiefs outside, with tho result that “ the Labour Party, as it exists to-day. is no longer a force in politics.”. This last affirmation is one with which anyone who follows national affairs with an open mind and with ordinary intelligence will altogether disagree, Tho only motive that can be assigned for this unexampled solicitude of the one extreme party for the other is self-interest. Before nominations closed for the Invercargill seat tho Labour Party was reminded that Reform had put forward a candidate at tho Hutf by-election to make more certain of a Labour win through a split vote; and it was notified that Reform expected’ Labour to contest Invercargill—presumably that Reform might win on a split vote. ’ There is very obvious chagrin at Labour’s failure to taka tho hint and reciprocate. Hut this chagrin is concealed—ill-concealed, we think—behind tho claim that all kinds of conspiracies are undermining the Labour movement and gradually wrecking it. Mr James Hargest, Reform candidate for Invercargill, has rather given the show away in one of his election addresses this week. Ho also has suggested that there has been some betrayal of Labour by its leaders, but the origin ha alleges is as far removed as the poles from that which has been indicated above. Mr Hargest attributes Labour’s abstention- from the present contest to purely local causes, principal among them being a split of long standing in the Labour movement in Invercargill. “For a number of years,” ho said, “ there had been two sections in tho Labour movement in Invercargill. Each election time a section had been led away by one of the leaders, and the work of the party had not been effective. Tho Labour leaders in Invercargill wore, for the most part, very worthy men. Messrs Alsweiler. Thomas, and Denham would bo an ornament to any parly, and they had for years stood solidly behind the party. Time after time they had pm up a candidate for election, but om* section had broken away.” Mr Hargest narrated how the result had bean

that in 11)22 Mr Farrant, and in 1925 Mr Hickey, had been left high and dry, and had felt extremely sore over their treatment at the hands of Labour. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Labour aspirants feel little enthusiasm over risking similar treatment in that electorate. Mr Hargest’s version of the attempt to induce someone to contest the seat in the Labour interest was as follows:—A week ago last Friday the members of tho Labour Party in Invercargill held a meeting and decided to put up a candidate. Two names were mentioned, the Rev. J. K. Archer, of Christchurch, as first, and Mr W. C. Denham, of Invercargill, as second choice. A telegram was received shortly after that Mr Archer could not contest the seat. A day or two later Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P., of Christchurch, visited Invercargill, and a further meeting was held, after which ho left the next morning for Wellington with Mr Thomas O’Byrne, who has been the prime mover in the Labour movement in Invercargill for a number of years. It was announced over the wireless that evening that Mr O’Byrne was a-likely candidate. Then came tho astounding nows to tho supporters of the party that Mr O’Byruo and Mr Sullivan had informed the Central Labour Connell in Wellington that it had been decided not to put up a candidate. This defeated the aims and objects of., the party, and loft it without a candidate. I suggest Mr Thomas O’Byrno was alone responsible.” There is no need to reproduce the personal attack, on Mr O’Byrno with which Mr Hargest supplemented this little bit of interesting history, but it is quite clear that it is local dissension in the Labour camp, and not the United Party’s complicity, which he blames for the contest being a straight out fight instead of a threecornered affair. The Reform organisation has surely lost its grip when it thus permits its Invercargill standardbearer to make public what ho knows instead of obediently retailing his party’s official explanation, for between the two versions there are no points of contact whatever. The prospects of Invercargill changing its traditional adherence to the principles of Liberalism will surely not be enhanced by this faux-pas. '