THE LABOUR PARTY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3912, 5 March 1929, Page 8

THE LABOUR PARTY.

A RUMOURED SPLIT. EMPHATIC DENTAL BY HIGH OFFICIALS. WELLINGTON, February 26. The rumours circulated in a Christ, church newspaper of a split in the Labour Party were emphatically denied by'high officials of the movement in Wei. lington to-day. “ There is not a tittle of truth in the statement. They are utter rubbish, just a silly canard, and someone s imagination has been working overtime,” was the summing up of the secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party (Mr P. Fraser). The allegation, as published, was that moderate members of the party chafing under its leadership were stated to be withdrawing from the Labour Party ranks. The names connected with the supposed scheme were Messrs W. L. Martin (Raglan), W. J. Jordan (Manukau), F. Langstone (Waimarino), J. W. Munro (Dunedin North), and E. J. Howard (Christchurch South). Mr Fraser, after making the declaration quoted above, went on to say that there were no more loyal members to the party than those named, and they had proved their loyalty by many years of service to Labour. Mr 11. E. Holland’s re-election to the leadership of the party for the life of the present Parliament, which‘took place during the recent brief session, had not only been unanimous but enthusiastic, those present making reference to his work on behalf of the party. In endorsing the statements of Mr Fraser, the secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party (Mr W. Nash), said that headquarters in Wellington would be the first to learn of any such dissension, but he had never heard the slightest suggestion of it, and he could not possibly dream of anything of the kind happening, as the members mentioned were in constant touch with the national office, even as late as yesterday. “ What better evidence of repudiation can be given,” Mr Nash added, “ than the letter I have just received from Mr Jordan intimating that he would be attending the national conference? ”

■AUCKLAND, February 26

Referring to the reported split in the Labour Party,. Mr M. J. Savage, M.P., said it was news to him. He had heard nothing of any such movement, and .was inclined to discredit the report because prior to the short session Mr Holland was re-elected os leader unanimously. So far as the leadership was concerned there was generally one man who stood out above all others,- and that was the case with Mr Holland with respect to the Labour Party. Mr W. J. Jordan, M.P.. also disclaimed knowledge of any split in the party. There was no such fundamental divergence as would call for the formation of a moderate group outside the party, he said. THE RUMOUR DISCREDITED, When the matter was referred to Mr Munro he emphatically denied that there was any truth in the rumour. “So far as I am concerned,” he said, “ there is no truth in the report whatever. And, moreover, there is no likelihood of it, being truthful.”

That any elements in the party relationship. tended to cause a split was strongly rebutted by Mr Munro. “When I was in Wellington for the short session the party was very solid, with good spirit and feeling among its members. I. think this report has been based on man-in-the-street rumours. There has been no talk of dissension over the leadership of the party. Mr Holland was elected practically unanimously by the party, and no suggestion of hostility has been advanced by any member of the party. The report says that six years ago Messrs D. Sullivan and J. M'Combs were considering their withdrawal from the party, but that, too, was only a rumour at the time.”