CORRUPT POLITICAL PRACTICES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20281, 14 December 1927, Page 6

CORRUPT POLITICAL PRACTICES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —In his letter in to-day’s issue AntiCoercion ” at last admits what he ought to have known from the start, that ho: was wrongly accusing the Prohibition Alliance of forcing secret pledges from candidates for Parliament. His bitter abuse in each of his letters I pass by. But I wish to deal now with the inconsistency of “ Anti-Coercion ” generally on the question of pledges. 1 have noticed with considerable interest the frequent reference by liquor writers and the Licensing Eetorm Association on the freedom and independence of our Parliament. This association profess a tender solicitude for our members of Parliament, and most strongly objects to the action of the Temperance Party in obtaining pledges from candidates seeking parliamentary honours. It solemnly avers that this means intrigue and the control of Parliament by an outside organisation. Among the most fervid objectors is found Mr Rupert A. Armstrong, who occupies the position of secretary to the Licensing Reform Association, and is also president of the Wellington Trotting Club, and whose well-known colours are seen arrayed on the course whenever his black and tangerine mounts are striving bravely to land his horse first past the winning post. So far so good. But what I am waiting for is to see the secretary of the Licensing Reform Association and his supporters, like “ AntiCoercion,” pouring out the vials of their wrath on the racing clubs for securing pledges from candidates to Parliament. Mr Armstrong’s and his confreres’ bosoms swell with righteous indignation-to the spectacle of the wicked prohibitionists asking for pledges from members of Parliament, but as president of the trotting club, Mr Armstrong not only acquiesces in, but no doubt applauds, the action taken by the racing clubs, through the Sports Protection League, to secure secret pledges from members of Parliament concerning the Gaming Bill. Candidates were asked by the Sports League in a printed communication this, question: “Will you support the repeal of the legislation which prohibits the publication of totalisator dividends, and the transmission of investments to racecourses? ’’ The_ candidate was informed that the league did not wish to raise the question on the public platform. He was invited to send his answers direct, whereupon the league would advise the branches of the league in the candidate’s electorate. Can it be, Sir, that we have here a species of veiled intimidation? Is it possible that this is a demonstration of the imminent danger of Parliament being controlled by an outside organisation—a contingency the liquor people so deeply dread? Perhaps “ Anti-Coercion ’’ and Mr Armstrong will yet rise up and denounce the Sports Protection League for its action, I wonder. In any case, does the secretary of the association propose to make flesh of one and fish of another! Why denounce the prohibitionists for doing this in an open, honest and above-board manner when the president of the trotting club is so deeply implicated in a scheme to “ dragoon members of Parliament ” per medium of a secret pledge in relation to gaming? To me, it appears that “ Anti-Coercion ” is angry only because the liquor traffic was unable to use it* power effectively on members of Parliament. I pause for a replv,— l am etc.. W. D. Polbon, Hon. Secretary, U.T.R.C.