FARMERS AND POLITICS

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 138, 10 May 1930, Page 7

FARMERS AND POLITICS

INTERESTING DISCUSSION. (Special to “Standard.”) FEILDING, May 9. Some discussion took place at the annual meeting of the Wellington Central provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union when the question of delegates to the New Zealand conference of the union arose. Mr G. L. Marshall (Marton) was nominated, but he asked leave to withdraw, stating that lie had 30 years of service with the union and felt like a rest. Mr J. Cornfoot said he had nominated Mr Marshall for a specific purpose. It was quite likely the matter of political leanings in the union would be brought up at the conference and the speaker wanted this thoroughly thrashed out, and he thought that Mr Marshall was one of those who could do this satisfactorily. Mr L. Hammond (Hunterville) agreed with the last speaker and thought that something drastic would have to be done, particularly in the Auckland province, or serious disruption would occur. He gave instances of what had occurred in the Waikato recently through political propaganda! in the union and stated that up there the veil between the union and the I Country Party was so thin that the | whole thing could be seen through' easily. He thought the Dominion ex-j ecutive should take up the cudgels on | behalf of the union. Mr Cornfoot pointed out that the, union was supposed to be non-political,' but there was a different atmosphere now. Ho thought a thorough thrashing out of the matter would clear it up. Mr Hammond said that the Dominion president, Mr W. J. Poison, was opposed to politics in the union, but other members thought the president could not very well expect this to be carried on whilst he was in his present position. Mr Cornfoot was emphatic that no man could serve two masters as Mr Poison was endeavouring to —ho had to declare his leanings toward one or the other. The chairman (Mr K. W. Dalrymple) said that the feeling at Dominion headquarters was that Mr Poison should not be a member of Parliament and still hold his present position, but they were so mindful of the good that Mr Poison had done for the union that they did not like losing him. Mr J. B. Bradley thought it wise to leave things as they were. It was only a matter of eighteen months when there would be a general election and Mr Poison perhaps might not be returned as member for Stratford. Mention was then made of some criticisms that had been levelled at Mr Poison, and in reply Mr Marshall said that if they were the case the people who made them could not support Mr Polsoir either as a member of Parliament or as president of the union. Personally, he thought the union would be disrupted so long as it had a member of Parliament for president. In referring to the vote of confidence the last conference had passed in Mr Poison as president, Mr Dalrymple said it had been recognised that something would have been precipitated had it not been passed. Mr Poison would thereupon have resigned his presidency and another man, in whom the union perhaps did not have confidence as president, would have been elected. Mr Howard wanted to know if the meeting would be in order in directing its delegates to the conference to vote on a no-confidenoe motion in Mr Poison, but the chairman thought this would be a pretty big thing to do before the conference took place. Mr Marshall said he would like to see Mr H. B. Stuckey (Dannevirke) asked to stand for the presidency. The speaker did not know whether Mr Stuckey would accept, but he certainly had all the qualifications that the position required. The discussion then closed, the delegates being left to express the feelings of the meeting without any specific direction.