A NARROW POLICY.

Observer, Volume XXX, Issue 39, 11 June 1910, Page 2

A NARROW POLICY.

The Doctrine of T. E. Taylor. MR THOMAS E. TAYLOR, the impulsive and strenuous member for Christchurch" North, has always been noted for the 'narrowmindedness of his views on various matters. At the beginning of his political career, this narrow-minded-ness was constantly obtruding itself, nor has maturity brought moderation in its train. Mr Taylor has recently been visiting Auckland, with the avowed intention of assisting Labour to capture the City East seat; although local Labourites, must have small confidence in tfheir own power and influence if they were driven to the extremity of summoning to their aid auxiliaries from the South. Mr Taylor was naturally seized upon by the local No-license Party as a pearl of great price, and what was called a "temperance rally" Was announced to be held : at the East-street Mission Hall. ". Mr T. E. Taylor, and the Rev. J. i J Wilson, and Mr-Robert French, and the ether leadens. Present, may call , it a ". temperance rally,'.' if they like. ■ * * " '. ' < "" ' ' ' i ' ' . A s

>~ ——— —■ — - \ ■ \<. \A rose by. any other name would *\ smell ,as sweet. Most of . the "'* rally," however, consisted ot poli-» •ticsipure and simple,- and as tor the balance—well, it was temperance of *an extremely peculiar brand. The t - , whole "rally" — whatever that .'weirdly mystic word may mean—con- - sisted of a characteristic diatribe by , Mr Taylor, in which, in a cheerfully impartial manner, he damned alike the Government, the Opposition, -' tih(e Legislative Council, and ' \, -pretty well everything and- anything except the views of Mr T. E. Taylor. On the devoted head •of the drink trade he thundered his denunciations in a style that could be equalled by Mr William Richardson only, and concerning the coming City East contest he made certain remarks that are worthy of .slight attention. It is an unfortunate trait in Mr Taylor's character that he cannot separate any other issue from that of No-license. Concerning Mr , * .Arthur Myers, for instance, he said that '' Mr Myers was absolutely impossible to him for the reason that he was one of the heads of the biggest brewing firms in the city." And a little later on he announced that he (Mr Taylor) "would vote for any man who had the best chance of winning, whoSvas a clean man and an honest man." Since it is axiomatic that Mr Arthur Myers has the best •chance-of winning, and since Mr Taylor had' already said that Mr Myers was impossible to him. it must follow that, in Mr Taylor's opinion, Mr Myers is either unclean or dishonest, -or both. '■ This is presumably for the sole reason that Mr Arthur Myers holds the honourable position of ' managing director of the Campbell :and Ehrenfried Co. If Mr Taylor's utterances are "temperance," aooording to the views of the No-ibsnse Party, give as "intemperance" as -typified by moderation and broadmindedness. •• • - It is not in the least degree likely that the frothings of Mr T. E. Taylor will cause one second's uneasiness . -to Mr Arthur Myers. But it is supremely regrettable that a Southern orator should see fit to come up here, and, under-the cloak of a " temperance rally," make an attack upon -one of our best and most respected citizens. Mr Taylor's remarks, on Mr Myers were in the w6rst possible taste, and his venomous insinuation that Mr Myers was either not a clean / man or not ah honest one was a gratuitous insult*. There is too much tendency on the part of the soap"box spouter and the ' peripatetic speechmer to vilify -respectable citizens, and it is time that the law' -regarding slander was put i: yco ja iit ion with a view to exterminating an intolerable and disgraceful condition of .affairs.