CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10213, 6 December 1893, Page 6

CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

TO THE EDITOR.

Bib,— The election contest is now over, and presumably there is some chance of cool judgment being brought to bear on vexed questions which have boon under discussion. Before dismissing tha contest and its surroundings, I wish to place before the electors, a statement of facta which, in justice to those friends who stood by me, ought to be made public. Throughout tha campaign and ia the Prohibitionist I was regularly referred to as the nominee of tho liquor ring, and as “refusing to budge one inch” on the Liquor Bill. Tho truth is aa follows :—The Liquor Party refused to accept me on their ticket, choosing Mr Hoban with Messrs Reeves and Collins. So much for tho first allegation. As to the second, the Rev F. TV. Isitt stopped me iu Cathedral square during the afternoon ‘of the day on which tho prohibitionists were to choose their candidates, and, infer alia , asked mo what ray position would be if they selected me as one of their ticket. I replied that loyalty on ono side demanded a return on the other, that Mr Reeves had been loyal to me, and I was in honour bound to stand by him; thus, if such a selection were made, 1 should have to ask my friends- to vote for but ono of the prohibition candidates, Mr Reaves and myself. That evening Messrs Smith and O’Bryen Hoaro were chosen by the prohibitionists, and on the following day Mr leitt again spoke to mo in tho street, and remarked that he was sorry to tell mo the prohibitionists had not selected me, adding—“ Any man whom we support must bo prepared to pledge himself to repeal that Bill or its main provisions .” My rejoinder was—“lf you were to promise mo 3000 votes this moment I would not give you such a pledge. Tho Bill has got to be tried, and where it needs amendment I am prepared to amend it.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall I distinctly stated that I should be prepared to reduce the size of the district? if found necessary; that I had voted, and would again vote, against the‘three years’ renewal; that I had voted against tha provision for one-half the electors voting, and would favour an amendment; that I objected to the permissive character of the clause referring to closing of houses, and that I had accepted tho Bill as a measure of reform only. And yet ia face of all this I am, for election purposes, charged by Mr Isitt with “refusing to budge su inch.” What 1 did refuse to do was to pledge myself to “ repeal the Bill or its main provisions .” I entered upon and went through the contest declining to give pledges to tho Liquor Party, the Prohibitionists, the Catholics, Bible-in-schools. Scripture text-book, or any other organisations, and, as an unpledged candidate, ran ahead of at least five others (except Messrs Taylor and Davie) who had given pledges, and missed a scat only by a narrow majority. I admit it would have been more politic to accede to tha demand for pledges, but to do so would have been to do violence to my judgment and convictions. I write this mainly to lot my supporters know why I was tho nominee of no section.—l am, &c., E. SANDFORD.