ELECTION IN EDEN

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 176, 26 June 1926, Page 8

ELECTION IN EDEN

MR POTTER EXPLAINS. HOW REFORM LOST THE SEAT, TBy Telegraph —Special to Standard.] / WELLINGTON, June 25. It was expected that Mr V. H. Potter, who in the Eden by-elec ion championed the cause of . Mss Ellen Melville against the official Rciuiu candidate, Sir James Gunson, would, refer to the election, controversy in the House of Representatives and be did so to ln a tiie course of the Address-in-Reply debate he said he had always made i clear that the charges of bribery and corruption made during the contest had not been connected in any way with the Prime Minister and the Reform Party’s organisation in Wellington. Jti saying this, however, lie was not absolving the Prime Minister and the party from responsibility for the ‘mess np.” The party’s own paper had said that one member, meaning himself, had for personal reasons entered the contest. He had no way of repudiating this charged except on the floor of the house and he did so now. “I emphatically deny that I acted, for personal reasons,” declared Mr Potter. _ It it had not been for the cool indifference of the Prime Minister and the party, the whole dispute could have been settled within the ranks of the party. „ After- referring to the good record in the general election of two unsuccessful aspirants for the party s nomination, Miss Melville and Mr S. Oldfield, Mr Potter said that lie felt it his duty to uphold the principles of the Reform Party, especially that of the square deal. He would still maintain that Miss Melville had not had the justice ami fair play to which she was entitled. By undertaking the Grey Lynn contest at the general election she had gained hundreds and thousands of votes for the party throughout the Dominion. Speaking of himself, Mr Potter said that he could not be justly accused, even throughout the Reform Party s paper, of disloyalty seeing that he had been loyal to tho party’s principles. “I regret the unfortunate happenings in Eden,” he added, “but Ido not want the Labour Party’s thanks for loaning them a member for the next three years. I must say I prefer a candidate with a platform to a man who has none and who is a former opponent.” , Mr Potter attacked the method used. in the selection of a Reform candidate as unconstitutional and said- that the people of Auckland admired Miss Melville for coming out at the by-election. Sir James Gunson, lie said, bad come before, the electors in 1919 as an “Independent Progressive,” with the slogan “New men and new methods,” indicating that he was opposed to the late Prime Minister and to the methods of the Reform Party. He refused to stand at the general election in spite of all appeals. Mr Potter said that lie was not there to defend Miss Melville. If the Reform Party had given her its support she would have been one of the most valued members of the House, but she had received pitiable treatment at the hands of a certain section of supposed Reform supporters in Auckland. He regretted having to refer to the matter, but lie could do no less. It had been stated from one end of the country to the other that there was dissention in the Reform Party! There was none so far as he was concerned. The section he had referred to had been converted to Reform since 1919. It was not for him to say whether they had become converts for their personal good or for the good of the country. Eor himself, he had yet to learn that any loyal Reform supporter could be true to his principles and be charged with disloyalty. >