ARE SOCIALIST MEMBERS TIED?

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2030, 17 August 1920, Page 6

ARE SOCIALIST MEMBERS TIED?

MR J. McCOMBS' REPLY. [Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League.j In answer to our question "whether he felt bound to support the plank declaring for a citizen army on a Voluntary basis, or the new policy adopted by his party since the election?" Mr J. McCombs, M.P., says: "I have no hesitation in saying that I am bound only by the platform on which I was elected," and "outside the Labour platform on which I was elected I am bound by no party decision and by no party caucus." That is a very definite answer, and we thank Mr McCombs for his reply. We shall be equally plain and definite in saying that we cannot accept his statement as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Our reasons for this comment are these: It is beyond question that the party's platform is decided by the determinations of the party's conference. It is beyond belief that the party can meet in annual conference and amend the platform of its decisions by way of amendments which do not in any way bind its members.

In asking us to believe that this is the case Mr McCombs is presenting his party's action as utterly ridiculous and without any affirmation of the conference itself that its decisions do not bind its representatives in Parliament (save as such decisions affirm what was already in the platform before the Parliamentary election. We cannot believe that delegates assemble from various parts of New Zealand and pas.; resolutions which are not binding on their members. Further, we know of nothing in the constitution, or decisions of the party, which affirm that members are bound only by the decisions of the annual conference preceding the Parliamentary election, and not by those made at a duly called annual conference held after the election. Our difficulty altogether in the treating of this party is to find out when its members are sneaking the exact truth. Mr P. Fraser, M.P., affirmed recently, over Ihe welcome to the Prince of Wales, incident, that he was bound only by Ihe decision of his party. Mr McCombs, M.P., says he is bound only by the platform he was elected on, and Mr Pod Ross, of Palmcrston North (an active the partv). in reply to our questions, published the statement that he was free to oppose any part of the platform he did not agree with, and did oppose its present land plank. It is not our intention to attempt to believe all of these three statements —that members are bound bv all decisions of the party, that they are I bound only by tlic platform at time of election, that they are bound only by so much of the nlatform as they personally agree with. Our readers may try if they can believe all these statements correct, we confess that it is beyond our capacity. We do not sav that Mr McCombs. Mr Fraser. or Mr Hoss are any one of them deliberately lying, bill that there is a fog surrounding their statement of the truth is most evident. It looks to us as if Mr McCombs would like to be an Independent, only that requires considerable courage on the part of a man lied to a narlv such as he is associated with. His references to "Ihe other Iwo parlies" do not heln him. because we have never contended that they are right in their form of party organisation. They are right, and Hie Independents are right, in Iheir loyalty to the Empire, but Mr McCombs is attached fo a partv whose official organ, in this week's issue, has the outrageous audacity to affirm this:—"lf Ireland succeeds in achieving her indenendence it means the hreak-uo of the Empire. That will he a blessing to Ihe world, and an inspiration to the cause of Labour." It is not a ones!ion here of how much or how little Mr McCombs is in bond to Ibis partv: if he wants to be recognised as a clean politician he should cut himself free from such associations entirely.