MR LEE’S EXPULSION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 27 March 1940, Page 9

MR LEE’S EXPULSION

(Continued from Page 5.) COMPROMISE IN CAUCUS. The matter which Mr Lee was constantly referring to. explained Mr Wilson, was a resolution passed 18 months ago by the Parliamentary caucus after consultation with the national executive after there had been a deadlock in caucus. The executive had met caucus and with it had discussed the situation from every angle. Eventually, said. Mr Wilson, a compromise had been arrived at by caucus, and the most damning thing that could be said against Mr Lee. Dr McMillan and their fellow-conspirators was that, with all the rest of the so-called Left wing, they had recorded their votes in favour of the compromise—a compromise which was later approved by the 1939 conference. ‘■Then,” continued Mr Wilson, “came the time when Mr Savage had to be operated on. He made a marvellous recovery ... a recovery which those who nursed him described as nothing short of a miracle. When I saw him on December 29 of last year, before I went on a trip to the South Island, I said to my friends, ‘Mi- Savage was making a complete recovery, but something has been retarding it just lately.’

“When I came back to Wellington, my attention was drawn to the December 6 issue of ‘Tomorrow’ and the article by Mr Lee. When I saw it, I couldn't believe there existed in New Zealand a human being who could have done such a thing. Even his political opponents would hot have done it. (Loud applause). “My own opinion is that Mr Savage’s relapse—and it may be only a coincidence —commenced soon after extracts from the ‘Tomorrow’ article were published in some of the daily papers. “Certainly, if I had been Mr Savage it would have retarted my recovery

“With every word of Mr Savage’s report I agree with all my heart,” concluded Mr Wilson. “Jack Lee stabbed Joe Savage in the back. If Mr Lee is fit to be in your party, then there are a good few of us who ought to be in a better party.” MR LEE IN REPLY. Mr Lee. the next speaker, denied that a definite attempt had been made by a few members of Caucus to have their own way. or that having agreed to the compromise at the last conference he was bound at all times to accept that compromise. He did not believe there was in New Zealand one man. fit or ill, who was capable of determining himself the whole of the conditions of the country. So long as that power reposed in the hands of one man he would not hesitate to attempt to bring about such alterations as would conserve the principle of democratic rule. “If my political life is to go forfeit for fighting for the principles of democratic control in Caucus, I'm under sentence.' but I will come again and again,” he added.

VIEWS OF MR FRASER. The Hon P. Fraser, acting-Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, was the next speaker, seconding Mr Wilson’s motion. Something had been said, stated Mr Fraser, about there being no caucus for several months. The explanation of that was partly that the Prime Minister had felt unable to face any more of the scenes that Mr Loo had been precipitating in caucuses and had wished to avoid further 'inconclusive disputes till the whole affair could be placed before the annual conference. Partly also it was due to his (Mr Fraser's) absence overseas.

“Before I left for England." continued. Mr Fraser, “I had the greatest hope that unity would be re-establish-ed in the Parliamentary ranks. If anyone was anxious to let the past be forgotten, it was myself. Then, on my way back, when I got back to Sydney I received this article” (Mr Fraser waved a copy of “Tomorrow”), “and I felt that everything was hopeless. How on earth could anyone work with a man who would write such a thing?” (Loud applause) .... Mr Barnard, M.P.. for Napier, said ... ho regretted the publication of the article in question, but. after all. what they were concerned about particularly was not the past but the future of the party. What really was at stake was the issue of democratic control within the Parliamentary Party. In the interests of the future of the Labour movement he wanted to see the question settled before the conference rose that night. The Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, said he believed a caucus should have been hold when Mr Fraser came back from England, but the Prime Minister said he would not go into a caucus till the conference had dealt with the matter. The Prime Minister felt that after conference had met they would get a better atmosphere in the party. AN ARTICLE DEPLORED. The Rev A. H. Nordmeyer, M.P.. for Oamaru, said he felt sure every delegate deplored the article written by Mr Lee and published in “Tomorrow,” but Mr Lee had already been dealt with for that offence’. . .

“I suggest,” he added, “that, this continued reference to Mr Lee looks to many of us like flogging a dead horse,” he continued. "The conference must be aware of the fact that Mr Lee is being condemned not for his article in ‘Tomorrow,’ but for his adherence to principles that 90 per cent of the conference adhere to.” The conference, he said, was dealing with effects and not with causes; it was not only dealing with Mr Lee’s article but with other matters. The real reason for the existence of differences was that the Parliamentary Labour Party was not carrying out the principles of democratic control.

Dr D. G. McMillan. M.P.. for Dunedin West, said he had had no connection with the article on "Psycho-Path-ology in Politics." which had been written by Mr Lee, but had it lost the party any votes? There were, however. things that had lost the party votes, and one of them was failure to carry out majority rule. The Hon D. Wilson, replying in the debate, said: "Mr Lee has been condemned three times and reprieved three times by people who are far more soft-hearted than f am. My whole life has been spent building up unity in the Labour movement, and no one would do more to avoid disunity than I: but Mr Lee has been consistently defying rulings of conference and the National Executive, ami he has stabbed the Prime Minister in the back. That disunity will only be ended with the departure of J. A. Lee. "It is Jack Lee and his associates who .have been responsible for the Prime Minister —and I read Mr Savage’s own words from his report to

this conference—having to go through ‘two years of living hell.’ ” The motion to adopt the relevant reports was carried on a show of hands by a majority which the chairman described as/‘six or eight to one.” MOTION OF EXPULSION. Mr F. W. Schramm, M.P.. then moved the expulsion motion. He said: “The issue is: Can J. A. Lee remain in the Labour Party and the party live? The answer is: No.” “Unfortunately,” continued Mr Schramm, “some few M.’sP. have been misled by Mr Lee into thinking that the light he was carrying on was a fight for democracy. "Up to a joint even I believed he was fighting for democracy. Then I discovered that he had been lighting only for Mr Lee. I tell you that if J. A. Lee had been Minister of Defence in a Labour Government you would never have heard any talk from him about democracy."

CHARGE AND DENIAL. Mr Savage, continued Mr Schramm, had personally told the speaker that Mr Lee had informed him that all the trouble could be settled if two men were given portfolios: Messrs Nordmeyer and Lee. Mr Lee: “That is not true.” Mr Schramm: “It is true, and I would accept Mr Savage's word before yours.” (Cheers). Seconding the motion for expulsion. Mr J. Stewart (Epsom-Oak branch), said he did so without malice, but in the calm belief that Mr Lee lacked the character and integrity necessary in a member of the Labour Party. The question was one of personality and not of policy. “When all the rest of us," the speaker continued, “were developing our sense of loyalty through free association with other individuals, John Lee was being hunted.” Mr Lee was complaining that he had been shot in the back, but the gunman was J. A. Lee.

“I don’t believe Mr Lee is capable cf loyalty to any man." concluded Mr Stewart. “Bejcause of that he is a menace to the party. The alternative to his expulsion is continuous guerrilla warfare."

The president said he proposed at that stage to read a letter he had received at the conference that morning from the Auckland, Central branch. The letter conveyed the following resolution passed by the branch: — “That in order to protect the members of the Cabinet and his colleagues in the Government from any further scurrilous and contemptible attacks on their character and capacity, this branch hopes that conference will unanimously expel its member for Grej’ Lynn from the Labour Party.” MR LEE’S STATEMENT. Mr Lee, when called upon by the president, said: "I came into the movement because fam a Socialist. I came into it because, being hunted, it gave me the character that Stewart says I lack. While there is anybody in the gutter I’m in the gutter.” At this stage Mrs Lee stepped up alongside her husband who embraced and kissed her. and there was a demonstration by Mr Lee's supporters.

Continuing. Mr Lee said: “While a woman is making a living by selling her soul, then by God, I'm in the gutter with her. I hope I - will always lack sufficient character just to be there. I have made mistakes: I will still make mistakes, but I've put a lot of energy into the cause. I love the movement. Its ups and downs have brought me great moments. If Igo I'l. go with a kiss as I wave you good-bye. and I'll go determined to work hardei than ever for the Labour movement.'

A motion that the question be put was carried. "I believe it is in the interests of oui movement,” said Mr Schramm, speaking again, “that Mr Lee must go ou' of it if the movement is to go forward. It is our bounden duty to vote for hi: expulsion from the party." After the motion had been declared carried on a show of hands, a care vote was demanded. On the card vote it was carried by 546 votes to 344. The announcement of the voting was received with cheers. Mr and Mrs Lee then walked out ol the conference.