THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE AND THE TAURANGA ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8064, 4 October 1887, Page 5

THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE AND THE TAURANGA ELECTION.

Bitter complaint is made by Mr. Gill as to the conduct of the New Zealand Alliance in regard to the Tauranga election, and certainly the action which was taken seems to us to have been treacherous and unfair to Mr. Gill, and not at all for the best Interests of the Alliance. When Mr. Gill became a candidate he saw Mr. Newman, the chief of the Alliance in Auckland, who showed him ttio questions which the Alliance proposed to put to candidates. Mr. Gill said he was willing to sign them, but Mr. Newman said he had better do so at lauranga, and gave him a- letter to the Rev. Mr. Griffiths. Mr. Gill saw this gentleman, and signed the questions. Things went on for a time, and at length Captain Kerr was brought out as a candidate. Ho bad not the slightest chance from the first, as the small number of votes which he polled shows. But the Alliance, after having accepted Mr. Gill's candidature, issued a circular, from which the following is a quotation :—" To further this end, it is the imperative duty of all who have the true welfare of the country at heart to favosr the election to Parliament of such a candidate as will actively support legislation of the above kind. We have such a candidate before us in Captain Kerr; he is in full sympathy with tho above policy, a man of high ability, sterling character, and untrammelled by party bonds." These words are eunpuasiboa in the circular; and the last phrase can only mean that it was regarded as a convenience to the Alliance that the candidate should: be able to support Stout, or Vogel, or anybody else. : Their dislike to Mr. Gill was possibly because he was dP pronounced oppositionist, and they thought they could ■ gain more from one who was "untrammelled by party bonds." The Alliance declares that it subordinates the interest of the colony to the social objects it seeks to attain. The result of the polling was that Mr. Kelly had 557 votes, Mr. Gill 532, and Captain Kerr 101. Mr. Gill lost the eleotion by 25. If the Alliance had con tinned their support, and had not brought out Capt. Kerr, -vlr. Gill would undoubtedly have been , elected. The consequence of the action of the Alliance was that their special candidate was nowhere, the candidate who bad consented to stand on their platform 1 was defeated by' a narrow majority, while I they virtually elected Mr. Kelly, a gentleman who owns two hotels and a brewery.