THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10214, 7 December 1893, Page 6

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sib, — Mr Sandtord’a memory must be seriously at fault, or mine is. It waa in the afternoon that I sought tha interview with him to which ha refers, in ordar that, before tha Prohibition Leagues met in the evening, I might personally know what probability there was of his acceptance of tho direct vote platform, Tho same evening I reported to tha meeting that Mr Saadford had twice assured me that ho would not vote for the repeal of a single clause of tho Bill if three thousand votes depended on hia so doing. It was not until this week that I had any idea that Mr Sandford’s recollection of the conversation differed from mine. Indeed, I understood that at Sydenham he gave a similar account of hia position in this matter to that which I have now given. Tha only pledges I understood Mr Sandford to give were that he would support amendments to the Bill if they were found to be necessary after it had been fairly tried. This attitude rendered it impossible for us to accept Mr Sandford’s candidature unless we abandoned every principle for which we had contended, and accepted a measure which we regard as throwing back for years the great reform to which some of us have given many of the best years of cur lives. Surely no greater condemnation of that Bill, as a measure of Temperance reform, is needed than is found in tho fact that, from one end of the Colony to the other, “ the Trade ” has done its utmost to return to Parliament thoio who were chiefly responsible for its having become law, and that Mr J- Harley, a Nelson brewer, haa said, “ lx, is a grand Bill; the grandest Liquor Bill of any country in the world, and it serves you Temperance people right for not being satisfied with the old Act, which waa good enough for you before.” Mr Sandford’a own letter shows that, while our acceptance of hia platform would have involved the abandonment • of a great principle, hia chief reason for not standing shoulder to shoulder with us was a question of personal attachment. In hia own words, he “replied that loyalty on one side demanded a return on the other; that Mr Reeves bad been loyal to him, and he was in honour bound to stand by him; thus if he were selected by tha Leagues, he would have to a=k his friends to vote for one prohibition candidate, Mr Beeves and himself.” However much personal regret may be felt at the breach between Mr Sandford and tbe direct vote party, ho has made it clear that they could not support his candidature except at the cost of also accepting Mr Seddon’s Bill and one of its chief apologists.—l am, &c,, PRANK W. ISITT.