“A Square Deal"

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 162, 26 June 1926, Page 5

“A Square Deal"

Prime Reform Principle RECENT MIX-UP IN EDEN. MR. POTTER'S EXPLANATION. (Special to “Tribune.”) Parlt. Buildings, June 25. Though he said he was loyal to the principles of the Reform party, the Reform member for Roskill (Mr. Potter) made no apology at the outset of his address in the House today for taking up the cudgels on behalf of Miss Melville in the Eden by-election compaign. "1 unhesitatingly say,” he declared, “that tiie Rt. Hon, the Prime Minister and the party in Wellington liave nothing to do'with the mixup in Eden.” Ho said be would have let the matter drop had it not been for the fact that the Reform Party’s paper had said clearly and decisively that one member of tile party (himself) for personal reasons had entered into the campaign. He had no means of repudiating that statement except on the floor of the House. The party’s paper circulated all over the Dominion, and he gave the statement it contained a most emphatic denial. He did not enter the campaign for personal reasons. Had it not been for tho cool indifference of the Prime Minister and the orgaisation at headquarters the whole matter could have been settled within the party ranks. Considering the wonderful fight which Miss Melville had put up against Mr. Bartram in (■rev Lynn at the general election, he felt it to be his bounden duty to uphold the principles of Reform, not the principles of the party controlling Reform. MR. MASSEYS EXAMPLE. The principle of the Reform party had been laid down by its late chief, Mr. Massey, namely “a square deal.” Miss Melville had never received the fair play or justice she deserved at the hands of the Reform party in Auckland. She had been promised that the Reform party would be behind her if she stood for Grey Lynn at the general election, ns it was desired to show that the Reform party was in favour of women entering the political arena. Hundreds and thousands of votes iiad been gained for the Reform party through Miss Melville’s standing for Grey Lynn at the general election.

”1 can hardly be accused, even through our own paper, of being disloyal to my party,” continued Mr Potter. “I am loyal to principles of my party, but if my party or any section of that party forsakes the principles of party then they cannot call me a disloyalist.” Mr. Potter went on to say that the official candidate, Sir James Gunson, had never previously assisted the Reform party, and bis selection was not carried out according to the constitution of the party. He was convinced that the public of Auckland applauded the action of Miss Melville in coming out against a vote splitter.

SIR JAS. GVNSON'S CONVERSION.

Mr. Potter also said he was not the only Reformer in Auckland wno did not want to see Sir James Gunson nominated for the Reform party. Sir James Gunson’s attitude in 1919 showed that he was absolutely opposed to the principles of Mr. Massey and that he was against the Reform party. His conversion must have been sudden when he decided to stand for the Eden election. At a time when men of calibre were wanted to stand for the Reform party, Sir James Gunson definitely and distinctly turned down the party’s request to do so. Had Miss Melville been elected she would have been a credit to Parliament. He was absolutely loyal to the principles of the party and to the paryt itself if it were conducted along the lines laid down by the Reform party, but be did take very strong exception to a certain clique or body of men known in Auckland as ‘‘The Kelly Gang’’ or “The Forty Thieves’’ doing the things they had done. Tie was quite convinced that the attitude he took up over the Eden contest was the right one, and he had yet to be convinced that any right thinking person or loyal Reform supporter who refused to sacrifice his principles could be called a traitor to his cause.