DUAL CAPACITY

Southland Times, Issue 20886, 23 September 1929, Page 6

DUAL CAPACITY

MR POLSON’S POSITION

FRANK DISCUSSION BY FARMERS

ADVERSE REMIT WITHDRAWN

“It is impossible for Mr Polson to be both Dominion President of the Farmers Union and a Member of Parliament and fulfil his responsibilities to both,” said Mr J. 11. McLeod, of Mandeville, at the meeting of the Southland executive of the Farmers’ Union on Saturday in the course of a discussion on the position of Mr W. J. Polson, M.P., Dominion President. The discussion, which was of a very candid nature, arose from the receipt of two remits dealing with the Dominion President’s position, one of which recommended that Mr Polson be requested to resign his office. Varied opinions regarding the merit or otherwise of such a course were freely voiced and Mr Polson was subjected to some frank criticism concerning his political attitude since entering Parliament, but it was eventually decided to withdraw both remits. The two remits were as follows:

From the Gore sub-executive: “That it be a recommendation that the office of the Dominion President should not be held by any member for more than three years continuously.”

From the Mandeville branch: “That, in view of the recent utterances regarding Land and Income Tax, Mr Polson be asked to resign his position as Dominion President, of the Farmers’ Union.”

The Provincial President (Mr R. Sim) said that in dealing with the two remits, he hoped members would not confuse them. He intended that they should be dealt with separately and he would not allow discussion affecting either during consideration of the other. Mr P. Arnott rose to explain that the remits were out of order. In such matters, the remits should recommend an amendment of the rules in the direction desired. Issues Too Important. Mr W. IL Ward moved that the remits be held over until the next provincial conference. He considered that the issues were too important for decision by the executive. Mr A. McKenzie seconded, but the motion was declared lost.

Mr A. R. Johnston, president of the subexecutive, then asked permission to withdraw the first remit. He said there had been a lengthy discussion in committee at the last meeting of the sub-executive on the question of the position of Dominion President. He had taken the discussion in committee as he preferred that the discussion in open meeting should take place at the provinical executive. Since that meeting, he had arrived at the conclusion that the remit did not strike as direct a blow as was desired and as there was another remit on the order paper, he would ask permission to withdraw the sub-executive remit.

Permission to withdraw was accordingly given by the meeting. “I don’t want you to let your feelings run riot in this matter,” said the chairman before proceeding with the second remit. "This is a most delicate question,” he said.

Mr McKenzie said he did not think that it was advisable for the discussion to be taken in open meeting.

Should Be Held Over.

The president said he did not think there was any reason for the discussion to be taken privately as the matter had been discussed elsewhere and had been given full publicity. Several other members supported the view.

Mr McLeod then rose to deal with the Mandeville remit and suggested that it should bo held over until further information concerning Mr Polson’s attitude was known. “After his first utterances, Mr Polson seems to have changed his attitude and we are not exactly clear where he stands,” he said. “Protraction won’t help the matter in any way,” remarked the chairman. “The remit will have to be discussed at some time or other.” Mr McLeod said the present position was not clear and Mr Polson’s attitude was likely to cause the resignation of a number of members, and this it was desirable to avoid. At the same time he did not wish to be unfair and he was not exactly clear concerning Mr Polson’s position. Mr W. 11. Ward: I object to the remit being held over as I think it is very unfair to Mr Polson. I think we should either withdraw the remit altogether or pass it to-day. Mr P. Arnott said that he had gathered that Mr McLeod did not know Mr Polson’s attitude, and in those circumstances he would suggest that the remit should be withdrawn. Mr McLeod refused to take this course. Private Discussion Not Favoured. Mr McKenzie then moved that the meeting go into committee. Mr McLeod seconded, but the motion was declared lost. “I feel we are on exceedingly delicate grounds,” said Mr McLeod in moving the adoption of the remit. “We have no objection to Mr Polson’s political ideas or to his holding the position of a Member of Parliament, but when he accepted the position of Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union, he accepted responsibility for the welfare of all the farmers in the Dominion. Since he has become a Member of Parliament, he has spoken as a member of the House of Representatives and not as a Farmers’ Union president. When the two positions come into conflict, it is intolerable. We object to Mr Polson’s attitude on several grounds. One is that he allowed the farmers to be singled out as special objects for taxation and he has also expressed himself in favour of a dual tax. It is impossible for Mr Polson to be both Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union and a Member of Parliament and fulfil his responsibilities to both.”

Mr A. H. McLean seconded the motion pro forma. He said the matter had been brought up at a meeting of the Kennington branch and it had been maintained that Mr Polson had entered Parliament as an Independent, but now he was a United supporter. The same position would have arisen had he voted with the Reform Party or the Labour Party. “We don’t find any fault with Mr Polson, but only that he votes with the United Party,” said Mr McLean. “The Reform supporters say we have a United man at the head of our union.”

Mr Ward said he did not think the executive could possibly adopt the remit. Mr Polson had been a strong and good worker in the Farmers’ Union. There were other members of the Farmers’ Union in Parliament and they included Mr J. Bitchener and Mr David Jones, both of whom were prominent members of the union. Mr Polson should be given time to make good and if it was found next year that ho had not worked in the interests of the union he would go out automatically. The farmers could not expect to get everything they asked for and they should be loyal to their president until they found he was not doing his duty. Appeal for Tolerance. “I think we should be more forbearing and more tolerant,” said Mr E. K. Sim. “I am sure that when Mr Polson feels that his position will affect the Farmers’ Union detrimentally he will resign. In the meantime we should leave things as they are.” Mr Henry Smith said the position was very difficult. When Mr Polson had been

appointed president unanimously a year ago, the speaker had felt, that this was a mark of confidence in hi|n as a man and that if elected to Parliament he would resign. "I was concerned when he was elected again this last term, for I knew he could not remain president and reconcile his two positions completely,” said Mr Smith. “The leaders of the union are much concerned by his position. In his address to the conference, Mr Polson said we can’t close our eyes to the fact that we have a businessmen’s Government, and yet we find him supporting it. At the conference it was carried unanimously that we did not favour any increase in the tariff and yet we find him supporting the increase in the primage duty. In a hundred and one ways, he is in an anomalous position and he will find it very difficult to justify that position. His first duty is to his constituents, and the Farmers’ Union comes second.” Mr J. Johnston: If it came to a vote, will he vote with the United Party and let the Farmers’ Union down ? Mr E. Bowinar: It would be fairet to put it that if a question of the welfare of the Farmers’ Union or the welfare of his constituency arose, how would he vote? It is unfair to say that Mr Polson is a United man and he would not admit that he is. He is in an exceedingly difficult position and he must consider his duties to his constituents first and hope that they do not conflict with the interests of the Farmers’ Union. An Able President. Mr Johnstone said he did not wish to be unfair to Mr Polson, but the question that appealed to him was whether, when he came to vote in the House, Mr Polson would support the resolutions passed by the Farmers’ Union for the farmers’ welfare. Mr McKenzie said that Mr Polson had proved himself a very able president. His election had been unanimous because they could not find another man who could fill the position so capably. “I think Mr Polson doesn’t always get fait play in the reports of his speeches,” he said. “When a question of the welfare of the Farmers’ Union crops up I think he will always bo with the union. He is not yet a party man.”

Mr T. Major said that when Mr Polson went into politics he had done so because he thought he could serve the farmers better. He had generally given the union to understand that the farmers were not getting the service from Parliament they should. When he had voted with the Government on the question of taxation he had been aware that the Government required additional revenue. "I am sure Mr Polson has a case to answer,” said Mr W. Couser. "We carried a resolution unanimously opposing further taxation, but we find Mr Polson saying that the Government was justified in imposing the supertax on land which is designed for the purpose of breaking tip big estates, which to my mind is equivalent to taxation. The sooner we clear the air the better.”

“Divided by Party Shivering.” “It grieves me very much fo see members of the Farmers’ Union divided amongst themselves for nothing short of a party shivering,” said the president. He said that at the recent conference a motion had been carried that the Dominion executive be asked to consider organizing means to assist the return to Parliament of members who were pledged to support the interests of the farmers irrespective of party feeling. “1 have been accused of being a partisan, but I deny it,” said the president. "I don’t care what party a man belongs to as long as he represents the interests of primary production. We have got to get down ami get our own representatives into Parliament. That is the only chance we have to get back our position in the country. Support a primary producer, I don’t care who he is, and you will get something. If you are going to be so petty as to demand the resignation from your organization of a man because he enters Parliament, you will tear yourselves to pieces and leave yourselves unrepresented and bare in a field open and bare and a prey to any political huxter that comes along, Bo united to have the primary producers represented.

“Mr Polson is a representative of primary production,” continued Mr Sim. “I don’t say he is infallible. He may do things contrary to your judgment or to his own, but he is a representative of primary production and if you go against him you will do the very thing you want to avoid. I hope the primary producers will not allow themselves to be disfranchised by party feelings. The party system is rotten, but we have not got anything better,” he concluded.

Mr David Dickie said he was inclined to oppose the motion. “I don’t think members realize to what extent farmers as a class are divided,” he said. “In the North Island, I quite believe that the party Mr Polson voted with has a majority-—at least that Is so in the Auckland province and in Taranaki, while the holders of big estates in Hawkes Bay support the Reform Party. There is a serious division of political opinion wherever you go. In this case, Mr Polson undertook to represent Stratford as an Independent, but he found it necessary to vote with the United Party.” Mr Dickie explained that a Member of Parliament was compelled to attend debates and to vote on any division. The party system had been a gradual development and could not be overcome as it was necessary to have a group decided on a common course of action. Mr Polson’s nomination at the last election had been supported by the Auckland delegates, and as the northern province had such a large representation it was not possible to oppose them. Mr Dickie said that with Mr McKenzie he had considered every member of the Dominion executive from Auckland to the Bluff and there were very few who were likely to fill the position of Dominion President satisfactorily. Remit Withdrawn. “Mr Polson is there for this year in spite of what we can say,” said Mr Dickie. “lie has done a lot for the farmers and it is only fair to allow him to continue until the end of the year. I would advise you to be prepared then to take- what action you consider necessary.” Mr Arnott again suggested that the remit should be withdrawn.

Mr McLeod said he had no wish to cause disruption in the union, and in view of the very free discussion he would ask permission to withdraw the remit.

The president: The motion is withdrawn. “Quite right,” said Mr McLean, seconder of the remit, as he retired from the meeting.

Delegate Questioned.

When giving a verbal report earlier in the meeting on the business transacted at the recent conference of the union held in Wellington in regard to the Government proposals concerning land taxation, Mr W. H. Ward, delegate to the conference, was asked his views of the attitude taken up by Mr Polson. . Mr Ward said that Mr Polson was in an extremely awkward position. He had scarcely satisfied a number of delegates to the conference by his attitude. He expressed himself as being in favour of the imposition of a supertax on land, but he was not in favour of the reduction of the mortgage exemption.

Mr J. Johnston: Did he say straight out how he would vote on these questions? Mr Ward: He was asked a question of that nature at the conference, but he practically said that it was his business and that we would know later on. Mr Johnston: It is the farmers’ business, and as our president he should recognize that.