COMING ELECTIONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 November 1935, Page 11

COMING ELECTIONS

CORRESPONDENTS’ VIEWS (To the Editor) Sir, —I see by to-night’s “Mail” that the supporters of the National candidate am not satisfied with the ungentlemanly tactics, they have resorted to, in order to discountenance his opponent, hut now have to enlist the services of Mr Coates to bolster up their candidate. To my mind, the leaflet that was sent out by Mr Everett’s committee last week, saying that Mr Atmore’s policy meant ruination to the country is almost libellous and Mr Atmore would he fully justified in demanding a public apology, i admire him for the clean fight he is putting up. It must he galling to him lo have such scurrilous statements made but he has proved himself to he one of nature’s gentlemen. On a tour I took recently through the North Island I felt very flattered at the eulogistic references that were made to me, in each place I visited, about our member for Nelson. He is considered by all tlie folk iii the centres which he lias | visited to he one oftli e brainiest men in the House, and I was told that Nelson folk should be very proud to have a man of his calibre to represent them. 1 venture to say, that if there were several more members like Mr Atmore, that the country would he run far more economically than it is now. There would not be the need to set up so many costly Commissions. Also, the electors would not he so heavily taxed to pay for all the “tourist” tripping that is indulged in now. Imagine New Zealand having to foot a bill of £9OOO, for Messrs Coates and Forbes and their retinue for their last jaunt to London, at a time when we are taxed to the limit, and thousands of women and children in this “God’s own land,” are almost starving. Then look at the money that has been simply squandered in North Auckland. There they have “tin-pot” railways leading to nowhere, and tlie huge sum of £2,000,000 spent on the Auckland railway station, and yet we in “Sunny Nelson” have to live in a state of isolation because there’s no money to link us up with the main trunk. The National Government gave a few “sops” to the electors, on the eve of its dissolution in the part restoration of cuts to the civil servants, and in lowering the unemployment tax, but I have no doubt, that if Mr Coates and party are returned to power that the taxes etc., will be in-, creased and that they will still further extend the life of Parliament as they did during their last term of office, without consulting the electors. In conclusion, I trust all Nelsonians will rally to the support of the one who has proved worthy of their support and who has served them faithfully and well for so long.—l am, etc., FAIR PLAY. Nelson, 11th November. (To the Editor) Sir, —In reading the electioneering notes in Monday’s issue I find the following from the Opouri Valley meeting: “Mr Wallace proposed a hearty vote of thanks for the address and one of confidence in Mr Atmore ‘for the next nineteen years.’ He said Mr Atmore had served them faithfully in the past.” Now, I would like Mr Wallace or anyone to tell me just how faithfully Mr Atmore has served us (the Nelson electorate) in the past. Except for the short time he held a Cabinet position, when he dotted “Harry’s Schools” all over the district —some were needed others not —he has not done anything of practical use for a great many years, if ever. During rlie past four years he has done nothing to help the Government in any measures they saw fit to pass for the benefit of New Zealand. The Government, although many times severely criticised, definitely has done great and constructive work, but what was Mr Atmore’s attitude toward all this? Everytime did he vote against; definitely proving a deconstructive member and not at all constructive. Although what more proof than. his present “egg”—very thin-shelled, too —the Douglas Credit is needed to prove his deconstructiveness, I don’t know. As for the “next nineteen years,” well l think the coming election will prove what a “flight of fantasy” that is. Coming events cast their shadows before. Yes, I am inferring the defeat of Mr Atmore, having more respect for the intelligence of the majority of the people in the electorate than that which he appears to have. Douglas Credit indeed ! —I am. etc., “OMAR.” Nelson, 12th November. (To the Editor) Sir, —What “The Vicar of Bray” says about the abject docility of the electors of Nelson seems unfortunately to be only too true. We pretend to despise the people of Germany because they all hold, or seem to hold, the same opinions as Hitler, and we proudly boast of our freedom of thought and speech. But there is a very good excuse for the unfortunate Germans. They know quite well that they will he roughly treated and perhaps forfeit their lives, if they think for themselves and don’t agree with those in power. The electors of Nelson, however, have no such excuse,

yet they blindly and of their own free will give their'support to Mr Atmore, no matter how much or how often he changes his politics. It would appear that wc all become Labourites, anti-Lab-ourites, Liberals, Independents, Coalitionists, anti-Coalitionists, Douglasites, anti-Douglasites, etc. etc., just at Mr Atmore’s sweet will. It is strange that we people of Nelson do not realise how supremely ridiculous it makes us appear when we cheerfully put up with a representative who is everything by turns but nothing very long.—l am, etc., SOMERSAULTS. Nelson, 12th November. (To the Editor; Sir, —In the letter appearing in last night’s “Mail” over the signature J. G. Hankins, the greater part of which is taken up with ill. Moncrieff’b arguments against Social Credit, there is one paragraph—tlie last one—which to me is of more than usual interest. I will explain. For many years I was a staunch supporter of Mr Atmore. and I reluctantly ceased to vote for him because of his lack of what, for want of a better term, l may call “political candour.” The meaning of this term is possibly best understood by reference to the present situation, the forthcoming election and the policies advocated bv the two main parties concerned. At the last election Mr Atmore stated clearly and definitely that lie stood as an Imfependent and I understand that he ; s equally definite on" that point now. With this I have no fault to find. In his speeches he devotes the greater part of his time in abusing the Government, using, in his scorn for all they have or have not done, language which only Mr Atmore is capable of. I have still no fault to find, as he is candidly “agin the Government.” But he is not *~equally candid in his pronouncement on tlie policy of the Labour Party, e.g., guaranteed prices, and he is far from candid as to his position on the Douglas Social Credit question. So too lie does not tell us where his Independence begins and ends. If Labour, tor example, wins this election, would Mr Atmore doff his cloak of Independence and accept a position of Cabinet Minister if such were offered to him? That, I take it, is the surest test of an Independent candidature. Now, I may be doing Mr Atmore an injustice in saying so, but I feel it is useless asking for his views on these questions/ as he either evades the question or declines to answer—in other words he lacks candour In regard, however, to the Social Credit question I have hopes of getting some information from ill' Hankins. Several of your correspondents state that Mr Atmore is a follower of Major Douglas. “Gamma” says so, M. .Moncrieff says so, and finally J. G. Hankins emphatically says so, but your fourth correspondent is, like myself, not so sure of this: “Arthur Hunter” at Richmond asked Mr Atmore if he believed in this doctrine and on receiving a very vague reply, asked for a plain “yes” or “no.” To this Mr Atmore in his very best lack of candour style replied that lie declined to he dictated to as to how he was to answer questions! Both “Gamma” and M. Moncrieff seem to me to base their beliefs of Mr Atmore's attitude to this question, mainly on inference—pace these two writers —hut I want something more than this, and in my dilemma I turn to J. G. Hankins. He is most emphatic that Mr Atmore is an out and out supporter of Douglas Social Credit. Very well. Will he then oblige me, and incidentally many others in the same boat, by stating on what lie bases this definite opinion? Has lie it in writing from Mr Atmore and has it appeared anywhere in print That Mr Atmore is an out and out supporter of Douglas Social Credit? I am sorry to trouble Mr Hankins. but I cannot help feeling we shall never extract a definite statement from Mr Atmore until after the election.— I am, etc., STUDENT. Nelson, 12th November.; (To the Editor) Sir, —As everybody else seems to be writing to your paper about the election I don’t see why I shouldn’t have a go and I am going to try to he fair all round. To begin with I must say that Mr Everett with one or two speeches has done what “Gamma” and Mr Moncrieff and all the rest of them couldn’t do with hundreds of letters, for he lias killed Douglas Credit so dead that it stinks too strong for Mr Atmore to like lugging it round with him any more and so lie shies clear of the name of Douglas like a horse from a piece of paper. But I must say I can’t understand this equating business of his any better than Douglas Credit aiul so I hope he will soon change on to something easier. Some of my friends are betting that next week ‘lie will he taking up the Chamber of Commerce scheme and others are betting lie will take up-the

good old gold standard, and some say that as there are two weeks to go there is plenty of time 'for him to take up first one and then the other. But what most are betting about is what party Mr Atmore will joiii next. Some say the Nationalists but perhaps it will be the Communists because he has never given them a turn yet. No one seems puite sure how many changes that will make altogether but'it seems to be somewhere netting on for twenty. Well, after all it doesn’t matter much how many times he changes or what he changes to next for

of course a lot of us will vote Atmore whatever he is and whatever he does because in Nelson, you know, we always do.—l am, etc., PATRICK. Nelson, 13th November.