“AN OUTRAGE,” DECLARES LABOUR MEMBER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17699, 20 November 1925, Page 10

“AN OUTRAGE,” DECLARES LABOUR MEMBER.

(Special to the “ Star.”) AUCKLAND, November 10. “To put it mildly it is an outrage,” said Mr M. J. Savage, M.P., deputy leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, when asked to-day for his opinion- on the way in which the returning officers had exercised their casting votes to determine the ties in the Lyttelton and Westland elections. “The returning officers.” he said. “ have done a stupid thing and one at variance with all established precedent in' Parliament and outside it. Whenever there is a tic the custom is for the casting vote to be given to maintain the existing order. “Apparently neither the ‘Herald’ nor anyone else questions that view in the case of Lyttelton, but because Mr T. E. Y. Sodden. formerly was member for Westland for a number of years it is argued there, is room for an exception in his case, but surely that is a quibble. The correct statement of the position is that in 1922 the electors rejected Mr Seddon and they have not yet given a majority for his return. The retiring members in each case were Mr J. M‘Combs and Mr J. O'Brien, and the casting vote shquld have gone to return them. That is against changing the existing order. “That is the rule, and in breaking it the returning officers took it upon themselves to do something that would not be done by any man of commonsense or any fair-minded man. The rule or custom should have been applied. and anyone who knew their business could not have cast their vote except for the retiring members. HON J. M’COMBS, M.L.C., IS GREY SUGGESTION. (Special to the “Star.”) GKEYMOUTM, November 19. Commenting editorially on the election the Greymouth “ Star to-night says that if Mr M'Combs is defeated for Lyttelton the Prime Minister would have an opportunity of doing a graceful act by offering him a seat in the Upper House. This invitation may not be accepted, but it would be the best reply to those who declare that there is no Labour representative in the Legislative Council. It is not right that anyground for such criticism should exist. Were two or three members of the Labour Party in the Council it would do them good and would probably have an enlivening effect on that chamber's proceedings. Few claim that the Legislative Council is now all that it might be. LABOUR LAYS CLAIM TO OPPOSITION BENCHES. (Special to the “ Star. ") WELLINGTON, November 19. The situation in regard to the official Opposition forecasted in these columns immediately after the election has come about through the failure of the Labour Party to retain the Lyttelton and Westland seats. This makes their party representation eleven, compared with the Nationalists’ ten. and the possibility of Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Atmorc joining with the Forbes Party to retain for the Nationalists their old position as official Opposition. Unless these members decide favourably to Mr Forbes Labour must take the front Opposition place, and this claim is made by the “ New Zealand Worker,” the party’s official organ. “By every right.” declares the “ Worker.” “ the Opposition benches in the new Parliament belong to Labour. The constitution by which Labour’s opponents swear will be shamelessly violated if by any trick or straining of the situation the Nationalists are permitted to sit upon them.”. Tt asserts that neithe/ Sir -Joseph Ward nor Mr At more, whom it describes as free-lances with strong Reform inclinations. can he justly included in the Nationalist total, and that the position in the constituencies supports the Labour claim, as Labour polled a total of 181.000 votes, and the Nationalists 133,000.