The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1931. MR. LYSNAR AND THE “TIMES” CRITICISM.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11494, 23 November 1931, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1931. MR. LYSNAR AND THE “TIMES” CRITICISM.

It seems that Air. Lysnar is very sore with this journal on account of its criticism in regard to his action in deserting the Reform party and in not resigning his seat in order that the issue might be put to the electors. What ho says is that ho denies that lie was in every way pledged to assist the Reform Party in; the case of no-oonfidciioo divisions. “There is”, says Mr. Lysnar, “no pistifioation whatever for that assertion.” In view of Mr Lysnar’s complaint, it is only right that we should present the position- as wo have seen it. We may point nut that, in Mr. Massey’s day,. Air. Lysnar was given the Reform “tag” for this electorate. Air. Lysnar will, no doubt, reply that he always claimed the right, and that that right was admitted, to bo permitted freedom of criticism on all matters. But is it logical to suppose that ALr. Afassey would have “tagged” a member who claimed a still greater right—the right- to vote against Reform on a no-confidence division? And now to come down to the. general election in 192 n, when Air. Coates had followed Air. Alassey an Leader of the Reform government. In the course of his campaign. Air. Lysnar gave this pledge from the public platform: “I am ah' Independent Reform candidate, with the distinct condition that I will not vote against the government on a no-confidence motion which would mean putting the Extreme Labor Party into power.” Taken by itself, it may he admitted that this pledge was not free from ambiguity. But were there not other factors which tended to satisfy the Reform party? Air Lysnar accepted the help of the local Reform League; Air. Coates sent word to Air. Lysnar that he had approved the recommendation' of . the League that he should again wear the Reform label; .Aft. Lysnar from the hustings, offered wonderful eulogies of Air. Coates—rhe considered the party had made “a good and wise choice” in appointing him to succeed Air. Alassey; and on the eve of the election he was delighted to read to the electors a wire from Air. Coates wishing him every success. During the following term of office, no' Reform supporter had any complaint to lay against Air. Lysnar on the score of deviation from loyalty. Air. Lysnar had said during the campaign “I am prepared to help him (Mr. Coates) to the utmost”. No party leader could, of course, have desired a more loyal promise. And now wo come down - a further stop—to the General Election in 1928. Again Air. Lysnar claimed that a certain amount of benefit was derived. from thb fact that he designated .himself . an “Independent Reformer” : from the public platform he averred “I think Mr. Coates is . a very promising Prime Alinister and has done exceedingly well”.-—his only criticism of the government, being that lie thought that some members of tho party were holding Air. Coates back; he. claimed that every; vote for the United,Party would help to put Labor in office; and, on the eyo of the poll, he waved tho audience’s attention to . the ten gentlemen sitting on his platform; declaring, with - pleasure in his voice, “You see oti tho platform to-night the members of tho executive of the Reform League”, and again he had a wire-to" road out from Air; Coates wishing him every Success. AVliat happened subsequently is, perhaps, better remembered. It may; however; be recalled that, when tho Uniteds, with the aid-of Labor, ejected Reform from office, Air, Lysriarremained loyal to Air, Coates. To-day, Mr Lysnar cannot find any words of praise for Air. Coates, although liis party/had- to remain the Opposition from 1928 until the recent Coalition government- was established; Air. Lysnar would now have it believed that the “Times” is wrong in suggesting that his main grudge against tho Reform Party is its hostility to his Meat Board Amendment Bill. The correspondence which passed between Aft*. Forbes add hitriself in November i92f> (when Mr. Forbes was Alinister for Lands and Agriculture) is interesting, but • it merely shows that-ho erroneously believed, fed had extra died a pr omiso f rbjn - tho United governtaent,,not- Only,, that- it tfould give facilities- for the;discussioh of' his -'(Mr Lysfciir’s) - Bltß if

brought down ’ early in 1930, but also that it' ‘would be dealt with' on non-party lines. Mr -Forbes had, of course, no option blit to. inform Mr. Lysnar that. it would bo beyond his control to clictato to tfio other two parties. Whilst his Bill was under discussion this year—it ■ was supported mainly by Labor—Mr. Lysnat it Tftay. be recalled, .-made 'Several violent attacks oil .Reform’s hostile ■ attitude and at last Mr.' Nash (Palmerston North) was, tempted to remark (Hansard, ‘ page 30) : " “He ! (Mr. Lysnar) has never, been off the Prirtio Minister’s (Mr. Forbes’s> doorstep since his Bill was introduced,' last year. He (Mr. Lysnar) baa stated in the House ‘l.am. supporting ;. a. ■ government 'that-trill do • something for , me.”’ ' Did -Mr. Lysnar deny this soft impohchtiicnt? (Not fit all. His rejoinder was: “Hear, hear; I hope so.” • • - !