MR. ISITT AND LABOUR

Patea Mail, Volume XLIV, 6 August 1920, Page 4

MR. ISITT AND LABOUR

AN AMUSING DEBATE. A sharp passage occurred in the House of Representatives on Thursday evening between the Labour member for Avon (Mr. D. G. Sullivan) and Mr. L. M. Isitt, which ultimately led to the latter member passionately defending his claim to have faithfully served the interests of Labour during Ids political career, ae.d as passionately attacking the principle of extreme Labour. During the course of a speech on the Imprest Supply Bill Mr. Sullivan was interrupted by an interjection by Mr. Isitt. Mr. Sullivan retorted that Mr. Isitt was antagonistic to the Labour movement and its interests as any member of the Massey Party. Mr. Isitt said he had been twitted about Labour when that member was “biting his toe.’' He would defy the member to find any utterance of his in Hansard or any vote cast that was not in the interest of sane Labour. “I admit,” he said, “that I am bitterly opposed to extreme Labour, because J believe they arc going to wreck the cause of Labour in this country. They arc betraying democracy.” That word democracy was continually on their lips; when it suited their purpose they claimed to be democrats, and no one regretted more than they any infringement of their rights. But whenever it equally suited their ends to ap-

peal to direct action—to induce the working man to seek to dominate the majority of the people by (he direct action of a small majority—democracy went to the winds —they were for that direct action. During the last few weeks there had been the case of a few men who were deliberately holding up a big steamer because those men differed from the utterances and opinions of one man who sought passage on that steamer. Had there been a won' of protest against that from them’ Mr. Isitt continued to ask what about the sabotage that was going on by those who called themselves representatives of Labour. There was ir sabotage that was far more harmful than the act of a man who endeavoured to throw sand in the machinery of a factory. The men who instilled into their fellow-men the idea that they would best serve their interests by going slow at a time which might Instated to bo the crisis of their country—those men were indulging in sabotage of the worst kind. Mr. Isitt dolled any of the Labour members to show how they could make the encouragement of going slow, the encouragement of direct action by a small section of the Dominion, accord with the principles of Democracy, the Democracy of which they talked so much. Whatever he got in the way of (aunt from the men who were betraying Labour, he would do his best to increase the interests and privileges of the many. No one was more determined than he to expose the mchods of the extremists and their hypocrisy. The time would come when the men whom they wore misleading would realise that they had never made such a mistake as when they listened to these people whose convenience it suited to trample underfoot the democratic principles, and who decried a country, which was the best and freest in the world. Their action was inexcusable in a land such as ours. He would always be in opposition to men who forsook constitutionalism and adopted the Bolshevik principles of forcing people —whether right or wrong —to give way before them. (Hear, hear.) “The extremist member for Christchurch North,” said Mr. H. E. Holland, “thinks that a Niagara of wind and torrent with a mighty churning of froth is argument, and a reply to the Labour Party.” Mr. Isitt was the most extreme man in his own line that ever came into the House, the most uncontrollable, most lacking in self-con-trol, and the most unfair opponent of Labour. He never looked for facts, but simply bellowed like the bulls on the mountains of Bashan, and thought that settled it. He talked about sane Labour; but if they did not know he was acting, they would think he was drifting towards a mild form of insanity. Ho would never have been in the House had not the staunchest Tories stood by him. Mf. Hockley: Quite right, too. 'Mr. Holland: Yes, quite right. They knew they could rely on him to oppose Labour on every occasion. Why should not the bookseller, who exploited the public, stand for his fellow-exploiters.' Mr. Forbes raised a point of order. The Speaker said Mr. Holland must not refer to a member’s private affairs. Mr. Holland said Mr. Isitt was extreme against drink, extreme against racing; but he could not even be loyal to his church in regard to the jockeys. When the workers stopped a ship on which was travelling the man who was victimising certain jockeys—the dictator of the racing world —he had to get up and bellow. Mr. Fraser: Y'ou’ll misrepresent him if you call him a Christian.