TWO DOCUMENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23615, 27 March 1940, Page 10

TWO DOCUMENTS

LETTER AND ARTICLE WRITINGS CAUSE TROUBLE EARLIER CENSURES PASSED The series of events which have culminated in the expulsion of Mr. .T. A. Lee. M.P., from the New Zealand Labour Party began in December, 1938, a few weeks after the general election and almost simultaneously with the introduction of import and exchange control. Mr. Leo chose that occasion to issue a circular letter addressed to all memA bers of the Parliamentary Labour Party. In it he made a long and detailed attack upon the policy of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, to whom he was Parliamentary TJ nder-Seereta ry. Too Orthodox Finance The chief accusation made against Mr. Nash in the letter was that he had adhered too closely to "orthodox" methods of finance and had insisted upon doing various things that were contrary to the finance policy on which the Labour Party had fought the 1935 election. In particular, Mr. Lee complained that no heed had been given to his own warnings that action would have to be taken to prevent the "raiding"' of sterling funds. Exchange control, lie said, had arrived too late. He also criticised the I re-funding of the I0:i7 loan, the Gov- ; ernment's borrowing policy and- its failure to take over the Hank of New ! Zealand. He condemned alleged at- : tempts by Mr. Nasi) to resist the will 1 of caucus and, expressed a general lack of confidence in his administration of the country's finances. Conference's Condemnation The letter received a wide circulation outside the ranks of those to whom it was addressed. At the annual New Zealand Labour Party conference in the following April, Mr. Lee's action was debated at length, the Prime Minister, Air. Savage, and Mr. Nash taking part. The conference ] eventually carried a motion condemn- j ing the letter in the strongest terms as a breach of party loyalty and an unmerited reflection 011 Mr. Nash in particular and the Government in general. The national executive was directed to consult the Parliamentary Labour Party and then to take whatever action it deemed appropriate. The incident led to much Opposition comment during the 1939 session of Parliament, and it appeared to have closed when, in December, an article by Mr. Lee entitled "Psvcho-pathology in Politics," was published in a Christchurch fortnightly journal. Citing the cases of President Woodrow Wilson, Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald and Sir Joseph Ward, the article asserted that the fate of a political party had often been determined by "the physical illness and resultant pathology" of a leader, rather than by other considerations. . . . Wherever, this problem of what I call pathology' in politics occurred, except that the party managed to cut off the diseased limb it. went down to crashing defeat." Censure and Apology A fortnight after the appearance of the article, Mr. Lee was removed from his nnder-secretaryship. In January he attended a meeting of the Auckland Labour Representation Committee, called to discuss the matter. The committee rejected a censure motion and adopted one upholding Mr. Lee's action and expressing continued confidence in the Prime Minister. The national executive of the Labour Party, at a meeting shortly after, strongly censured Mr. Lee and condemned what it termed "the disgraceful inferences and innuendoes" contained in the article. Mr. Lee gave the executive an assurance that he would apologise to the Prime Minister. He did so the same day, stating that the article had been ungenerous and not fair to Mr. Savage. He also affirmed his loyalty to the Government and the Labour Party. PARTY DISCIPLINE PLEDGES BY MEMBERS RESIGNATION NOT INVOLVED Hi ere is a fairly widespread belief that to ensure discipline within the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party members are required to place their resignations, undated, in the hands of the leader. However, prominent members of the party in Auckland said yesterday that this was not so. The only pledge of which they were aware was the party pledge, in which the signatory affirmed that he was not a member of any other political party, that he accepted the Labour Party objective and programme, and that he Would work and vote for the party candidates elected according to the constitution. They knew of no power of recall in the pledge or in any undertaking by the candidates. It was also stated that there was no definite rule in the constitution of the party dealing with specific breaches of party discipline, but that it was within the power of the annual conference to consider any case on its merits and to make a decision that would be binding upon members.