THE FUSION ISSUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19532, 15 July 1925, Page 8

THE FUSION ISSUE.

FUSION EFFORTS FAIL. | NEGOTIATIONS ENDED. STATEMENTS IN THE HOUSE (Fbom Oue Own Cobbespondent.) {From Otcb Own Cobbespondent.) "WELLINGTON, July 14. ,'During, the forenoon it was rumoured thai statements would be made m the House by the Prime Minister and by the .Leader of. the Opposition, and at the afternoon sitting there was an unusually full .JHouse., Before Mr Speakers entrance kbete was a hum of conversation, such as is usually noticeable when events of importance are on the eve of taking place in. ■ the ■ House of Representatives. , ■■■ The formal business of the afternoon did "toot take long, but the way to the expected statements was blocked by Mr Parry s 'speech on the Miners Phthisis Bill, which he "is introducing. After Mr Parry had ;finlahed his speech on the introduction of the Bill, Mr Coates rose and obtained leave from the House to make his statement. Vfor some objection from Mr Howard :S!(Christchurch South), who said the Bill before the House was of more importance than, the expected statements. Mr Coates, however; agreed that further time would be given to those who wished to discuss Mr Parry's Bill, and proceeded to make his statement, in the course of which he read .the correspondence that had taken place. PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS. CONVERSATIONS AND CORRE- '..:-:' '•■:, ■'.'; SPONDENCE. p The correspondence read by the Prime Minister, excluding that already published, *ia as follows: Mr T. M. Wilford to Prime Minister, July 3. Dear Mr Coates,—lt is a month -ago to-morrow since you received my letter offering to send delegates to a conference with your party to discuss what you called "a friendly merger of the twc- parties." Since the date of the first" conference between the delegates on June 18 we have negotiated some of the hurdles and bunkers, and have advanced many miles on the road to the making of a new party. Yesterday we received eertain resolutions from your caucus, the second of which resolutions is not clear to our caucus. It reads as follows: That the question of reconstruction be left ;.,., entirely in the hand of the Prime Minis""terl" After the last conference but one our delegates informed us that, in accordance with our instructions to them, they had asked your delegates to ascertain whether, in the event of fusion being agreed upon by our party, the new party would be brought into being immediately. By way of reply to our delegates' question, your delegates brought •as the* above resolution, which you will see at once, as our caucus saw, does not in any way answer our question, for while you have been sriven authority by your caucus to "reconstruct," whatever that means, there is nothing in the resolution to require you to reconstruct either at once or at any particular time. I feel sure that such was not the purpose of the resolution. My caucus has asked me, after hearing the resolution read to them, to ask you if you will send me an answer to the question our delegates asked, and which so far is unanswered—viz., "Are we to understand that if fusion Is accomplished the new party will be Immediately called into being and a new Ministry constituted by you from the new party, under your constitutional right as leader of the new party?" You ■will, I am sure, admit it is quite impos sible for us to carry any resolution to join up at some future date which is undetermined and quite indefinite. Such a course would be wrong to our supporters in the country, and also to the Labour Party, which partly clearly has a constitutional right to our place on the • i Opposition Benches immediately a friendly merger takes place. As you nave by the resolution you have sent us been left to settle this question when, where, and how you like, I feel sure you will be able to answer our question. Our party can then finally decide for fusion or against fusion. lam sorry I ani unable to see you personally to ask this .question. I have been confined to my room for the last two days with influenza. I would be much obliged if you i —would send me an answer as soon as possible, so that I may send your answer to my Thomas M. WilFOBD. . This letter was acknowledged on tho same day, and the following reply was forwarded to Mr Wilford by the Prime Minister:— ;"v. July 7.—Dear Mr Wilford,—l under- : stand your letter of the 3rd inst. to ask whether, if fusion is effected, there will be an immediate reconstruction -of the present Government, and the formation of a new Government from both parties. For many reasons I do not think that this is practicable at the present juncture. As you are aware, in my public statement of May 30 last, I said that '"the policy which my late, distinguished "predecessor laid down in general, and • on which a large number of members werti elected to support, is to be maintained. It is not the intention of the Government to propose any radical deviation from that policy." It seems to me, therefore, that the Government's first duty is to carry out this pledge. When that work is completed with the help, I hope, of your party, we should then go to the electors and ask them to return a strong and stable Government in order to carry out fc afttlonal progressive policy which will conserve both the peace and prosperity of the dominion. I should also add that very complete organisation by my party has been effected throughout the country, and candidates selected to whom support has been promised, and it would be impossible, if fusion were immediately effected, to recognise adequately these coromitmente, and at the same time make due allowance for tho members of your own oarty who had thrown in their lot with" our party. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I am unable to agree to an immediate reconstruction of the Government. I suggest that a solution of the difficulties presenting themselves in the electorates may be best realised by an examination by representatives of our respective organisations in the individual electorates. Should you so desire, I am i quite ready to discuss in further detail matters in relation to the negotiations that have been recently under review bV the two J. G. Coats*.

A RESULTLESS EFFORT. „, NEGOTIATIONS AT AN END. PARTY LEADERS' STATEMENTS. The conversations and correspondence that have been taking place between the Reform and the Liberal Parties on the subject of the amalgamation of the two parties are at an end, and, as hts been predicted, the negotiations have broken down. Apparently (as had also already been stated) the main obstacle in the way has been the difficulty, or the impossibility at this late hour, of making a satisfactory arrangement in the electorates. Another caucus in connection with the negotiations was held by the Liberal Party on Monday night. Following that Mr Wllford (Leader of the Opposition) had an interview with Mr Coates, and yesterday morning, after another caucus, he wrote him the final letter which made an end to the whole matter.

On July 9 Mr Wilford again wrote to the Prime Minister as follows : Dear Mr Coates, —I have received yours of the 7th instant in reply to mine of the 3rd, and have conveyed the same to my caucus. Your statement that you consider the creation of a new national party at the present time is impracticable has come as a surprise to our party, as you will remember you invited us “to bury the hatchet and bring about a friendly merger.” We are satisfied that by your reply you have banged, bolted, and barred the door to the creation oi that national party which, we believe, the country requires.—(Signed) Thomas M. Wilpobd. On July 9 the Prime Minister replied as follows: — Dear Mr Wilford, —I have received your letter of this date, and, in reply, regret that you should have placed the interpretation which you have on my letter of the 7th instant. I have not “ banged, bolted, and barred the door,” as I expressly stated that I was quite ready to discuss in further detail the negotiations recently under review by the two parties. The suggestion that we should “ bury the. hatchet and bring about a friendly merger” I still have' in view, and, notwithstanding’ your statement, this course, - in my opinion, is feasible, but as I have already pointed out in my previous letter, for the remainder of the present session I am pledged to complete the programme of my predecessor, and not the programme of a now party. Thereafter, I will submit 'myself to the electors, asking all those who believe in a strong and stable Government with a national progressive pplicy to stand in behind me, and to afford me their united support.—(Signed) J. G. Coates. Finally, on July 14, Mr Wilford communicated as follows with the Prime Minister: Dear Mr Coates, —Referring to your letter of the 9th instant, and the subsequent conversations between us, at which (to quote your own words) we sought “to discuss in detail the negotiations recently under review by the two parties,” and to explore the view “ that a friendly merger was still feasible,” the result of our interviews has shown me that the position has not changed, and that you are still adhering to your opinion as set forth in yours of the 7th, when you stated that “ an immediate reconstruction of the present Government and the formation of a new Government from both, parties is, for many reasons, impracticable at the present juncture,” and “that you were unable to agree to an immediate reconstruction of the Government.” I can only reiterate what _ I said in my letter to you of the 9th instant—namely, “ that we are satisfied that by your reply you have banged, bolted, and barred, the door to the creation of that national party which, we believe, the country requires.” This view was endorsed by my caucus at its meeting this morning.— (Signed) Thomas M. Wiifoed. MR WILFORD’S STATEMENT THE LIBERAL VIEWPOINT. Mr Wilford detailed the circumstances connected with the negotiations from his point of view. After rending the preliminary letters he referred to what took place on May 16. A friend of his and of the Prime Minister, he said, met him at his (Mr Wilford’s) house on the Saturday. This man he would call Mr X. Mr Holland; Mr X was in the divorce court, was lie not?—(Laughter ) Another Member: He is in it now. Mr Wilford said that Mr X came to, see whether there was any ■ chance of a conference between the two parties. On the night of May 16 he saw the Prime Minister. 'What was agreed to between him and the Prime Minister he (Mr Wilford) did not know, and Mr X did not disclose the names of the members of the Liberal Party he was speaking for. He, however, discussed the question with the Minister and informed him (Mr Wilford) next day that the Minister was not averse to a conference. Mr X left for the South Island on Monday night, and did not see him again. On May 27 there was the Reform caucus, at which the Minister of Railways was elected leader. The resolution of the Reform caucus was conveyed to his representative on the morning of the 3rd, and on the fourth he wrote to the Prime Minister asking what had been the result of the caucus. “On the 4th,” continued Mr Wilford, “Hr Coates replied that he was surprised that I did not already know, but as I did not know he would let me know. Immediately his reply came I wrote informing him that I had had no word from my representative, and that his letter was the first Information. I had received that the Reform caucus, had offered to confer. Then the newspapers of New Zealand let loose on our party, and I was subjected to insults that they. had been traitors to me. This went on from oue end of the country to the other, and I had to remain quiet in regard to the charge that members of my party were taking part in an intrigue behind my. back with the Prime Minister. Nothing of the kind had happened.” Mr Wilford went on to say that he was not blaming the papers for what they had written, for if he himself had known no more than every editor in New Zealand knew, he would written as they did. The reason was that Mr Coates’s first telegram had not reached his representative owing to Ids having left his home town again before the telegram arrived, and it was not. forwarded to him till the night of the sth. Thus he was unable to inform him (Mr Wilford) what had taken place. Therefore the letter which he. (Mr Wilford) wrote on the 4th was written without any knowledge of the contents of the Prime Minister’s 'telegram which his (Mr Wilford’s) representative had not received. As a matter of fact, no one had intrigued against him, and he was proud of the way his followers had carried on. He wished to take off them the stigma of having gone io the Prime Minister simply to make representations on behalf of their party. REFORM RESOLUTIONS. The Prime Minister in his statement which he had just read had left out all the resolutions, and ho now proposed to put them on record. At the first conference on June 18 every single point of policy, including electoral reform, long-dated mortgages to farmers, and others were thoroughly discussed. The delegates went back to their respective parties and reported that no conclusion liad been come to. Mr Wilford said the Reform delegates brought to the Liberal delegates three resolutions to hand to the Liberal caucus: (1) That the matter of Cabinet portfolios be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister of tne new party; (2) that the Reform Party will not accept preferential voting; (3) that the difficulties of the situation in the electorates be put plainly before the Liberal Party and they be asked to make suggestions for a fair and equitable solution.

The first point was unanimously agreed to by the Liberal Party, because if Mr Coates were the Prime Minister of a new party it rested with him to say who the members of his Cabinet should be. Regarding the second point, the Liberals wanted proportional representation, and it they could not get that they wanted preferential "voting. As regarded the third point the Liberals decided to go back again and make a suggestion regarding the candidates, having left the question of portfolios to the new Prime Minister of the new party. Mr Harris: What did you decide about preferential voting? Mr Wilford: Cur idea was that we should have electoral reform. After the Reform delegates went away they came back with three more resolutions. There was another conference, and then each committee reported to its side. The three new resolutions were: —(1) That the meeting was in favour of fusion (that was the Reform Party); (2)'that the question of reconstruction should be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister; (3) that the problems relative to candidates in the field be settled by mutual agreement. The Hon. Mr M'Leod: Is that not replying to your request? Mr Wilford said that No. 1 was all right. No. 2 he had described as an advance, remarking that the Prime Minister had cut himself off from the Reform Party. That was why he wrote the letter of July 3. Mr Coates in his letter replied that for many reasons he did not think this practicable at the present juncture, and also that he was unable to agree to immediate reconstruction. No one regretted more than he did that it had not been possible to create a National party. Every member of the Liberal Party believed it should be done, but no member of the Liberal Party was going to help to form a new party unless it was a national party reconstructed with a policy which could be agreed upon—a progressive policy. He said then what every member of his party had said in conference, that they were willing to leave to the Prime Minister the constitution of the Ministry for the new party, and would have placed in his hands the power of reappointing every man he had at present without any one of the Liberals receiving a place, trot they were not prepared to join without a new Government, a new party formed with a sound progressive and national policy. “I am sorry,” concluded Mr Wilford, “it has failed. I have honestly done my best.” A CRUCIAL POINT. CABINET RECONSTRUCTION. ALLOCATION OF PORTFOLIOS. (Fbom OuiS Own Cobbespondent.) WELLINGTON, July 14. The Hon. Mr M'Leod. in hia speech tonight, suggested that Mr Wilford, in explaining his position in regard to fusion, either said too little or too much. From the correspondence it is safe toinfer that the preliminary negotiations revealed the fact that the Liberals must have discussed with the Reformers the question of a quid pro quo in the-shape of portfolios. This is shown where Mr Wilford asks the question whether the refusal to reconstruct is final. Ail through the correspondence the term reconstruction has been used in reference to Cabinet reconstruction, and in no other sense. It does not mean the reconstruction of the two parties into a National party, but to the reconstruction of the Ministry on the lines of the fusion. It will also be noted that it was after the Prime Minister’s final dictum that he could not agree to such reconstruction during the session that Mr Wilford stated that the door had been “ banged, barred, and bolted.” It is understood in regard to the electorates that the Liberals’ solution of the other main difficulties was preferential voting, which the Reformers could not agree to. All through the Reform Party has been quite prepared to agree to amalgamation. but not upon the condition that it involved the immediate reconstruction of the Cabinet on a fusion basis. Mr George Sykes (Masterton) said that he regretted to hear that the negotiations had broken down. He had sincerely hoped ,that a spirit of sweet reasonableness would have prevailed, and that something might be done to bring about a fusion of the two great parties. He felt that the country demanded It, and that at the next election the people would speak with no uncertain voice. Labour Members: They will do that all right. MR WILFORD’S STATEMENT “TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH.” (Feom Ouiß Own Cobbespondent.) WELLINGTON. July 14. The first speaker in the Addresa-in-Reply debate this evening was the Minister of Lands (the Hon. A. D. M'Leod), who, at the outset, made a passing reference to fusion. Ho said he had listened to the statement of the Loader of the Opposition that afternoon, and ho certainly thought that a little more or a little loss should have been said. He (Mr , M'Leod) had not cantered into the matter except in his position as the official head of the Reform organisation. All parties ' who took their part in political life to fight it out to its end (which should bo the winning end), must know the value of organisation, and the almost certainty there would bo of failure without it. He had nothing to answer for in so far as his association with that organisation was concerned, beyond that it was thorough as far as it could go, and he owned a debt to the men who had come forward under groat disadvantages to offer themselves one, two, and three months ago. To say that they should be cast aside inside that House was not right, and ho knew who were the final deciders. Whatever arrangements members might make as to how they should cut up the loaves and the fishes among themselves, he had no hesitation, in so far as he was concerned, in leaving it entirely to their judgment.