MR. PEARCE AND MR. POWDRELL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXIV, Issue 17732, 4 December 1919, Page 8

MR. PEARCE AND MR. POWDRELL.

MR G. V. PEARCE AT MOKOiA

(From Hawera, Star.)

(Published by Arrangement.) At his Mokoia meeting last evening, presided over by Mr Catclipole, Mr Pearce referred to tlie arbitration negotiations as between the two Reform candidates standing for the Patea seat. He said that, unfortunately, there had been a great deal of talk r.nd misrepresentation in regard to himself and the other Iteform candidate, and it was necessary to make some explanation. Reports'had appeared in the newspapers —ex-partc statements —in regard U) the two so-called Reform candidates. Actually he (the speaker) was the only lief ore candidate, as he would be able to show them later on. The suggestion was mado that Mr Massey should come up and speak at Eltharn. and that whilst he was in the district twelve supporters of each of the two candidates in question should meet in Hawera, with th© object or endeavouring to arrange that only one Reform candidate should contest the seat. That meeting was held, and as a result it was agreed to leave the matter of arbitration if he (Mr Pearce) were agreeable, and that Mr Massey should appoint the arbitrators. Mr Massey communicated with him at Wanganui—he was addressing a meeting at Westmere —asking him to meet Mr Massey in the train ou his return to Wellington. He (Mr Pearoe) did so., and agreed to arbitration, and Afr Massey then suggested Mr Wilkinson as arbitrator, who should have with him two assessors —one interested party from each side, to bring out the evidence—and that the two chairmen of the Patea committees should bo the delegates, as thst was central, and it would not be fair to f all witnesses to Hawera —at the extreme end of the electorate. They found, however, that Mr Pqwdrell had not a chairman of committee i.% Patea, and he (Mr Pearce) then agreed to accept the chairman of Mr Powdrell's Rawera committee (Mr Hunter). Mr Massey then suggested that he (Mr Pearce', should see Mr Wilkinson and explain the proposals to him, i>3rause the 24 delegates previously referred to might want to reconsider tlis modified proposals, whi.h differed from tho original conference suggestions of ; three arbitrators. He saw Mr Wilkin. sen, who agreed that the modified suggestion offered the better course, and who remarked, also, that he had covnmunicat?;! with Mr Powdrell and that hi was agreeable. Mr Wilkinson then suggested that Mr Pearee should come ■to Hawera on Saturday night with his sissessor, Mr Grainger, to discuss ike position with Mr Powdrell's assessor. He (Mr Pearce) wars'not asked to bring any evidence, he was to be available at the Commercial at 7.30, and if required would 1)3 iung up. Mr Grainger was re. quested to attend at Mr Buckeridgs's office to ineo'o Mr Hunter, but when he arrived there he found Mr Powdrell already there with a number of other men. Was that a fair position ? Mr Grainger then asked Mr Wilkinson to rfear this room, as the understnding was that the■:« was to be only one, and that person-the ass^'jeor for each side. This Mr WilU:h&o2» did. He did not send for him (Mr Pearce) but he knew he was aavilable at the Commercial Hotel at any time if required). But this was what Mr Powdrell published in the Star : '^ All Mr Powdrell's witnesses, with evidence were present,, including men from near !Wangaiitii. ■ Neither Mr Pearce nor witnesses attended the meeting, but fresh tar-jis were suggested by Mr Pearoe, through Mr Wilkinson, which were not acceptable to any of the part?©?, so the arbitration agreed oa was abortive."

It was nothing of the kind, nor bad. | 1 they ever arranged to produce evidence j on Saturday, night. Tv that connection ! the statement published by Mr Po.v- I drell's side in the Star was an absolute | vntruth. " L-atc-r on that .evening Mr | Wilkinson came down to the Coramer-' | rial Hotel and made the statement be- | fore several witnesses that Mr Hume" wanted, to tender' evidence, but Mr Graiugev objected unless he also could have the "npor-tunity of producing cvi- i dence, which would take some days to j collect. Thereupon Mr Wilkinson de- j dined to p;ooeed further, pointing out Hiat he had to leave for the-, north on Monday, and could not, therefore, possibly wait forjthe evidence to be collected. -Fiii'thermore, ho remarked tint probably a ure.it of the evidence that would bo tendered would 1,-r? quite useless. *In spite of these facts, which must havq been perfectly '.veil known to Mr Powdrell's committee, they inserted 1 hat garbled and twisted statement 'ihey made in tlte paper. He would like to po"np out n reference to the statement that appeared in the Star, that Mr Grainger supplied the first portion (and signed his name) but the Star omitted his nar'p and instead prefaced it with tho words "we are informed from an authoritative source." The second part of the report., and the misleading portion, followed immediately on it. and although it had the preface "we are informed from other ■ sources," the public did not discriminate, and thought it was all one report, and -n that respect misled many of them. Mr Granny 3r subsequently wrote explaining the position, but it was unfortunate tliat a wrong impression had been conveyed to the minds of people. There was another statement io which ho would like to draw attention: 'The second resolution was that both candidates be asked to withdraw in fa?ur of a new 'candidate.. Mr Powdrell's ! committee agreed to this, and informed Mr Massey that ?-*r Powdrell would stand down; also he* would pay half of the new candidate's electioneering expenses if necessary, but when .seen Mr Pearce refused absolutely." He certainly did refuse, because, to start with, it showed that Mr Powdrel] wr.s not <-o keen to wir. the scab as he was to push him (Mr Pearoe) out. In discussing the suggestion with Mr Massey, however, he asked him had he a man in view who could win the .seat from Mr Morrison, because if so he (Mr Pesuve) would consider the proposal, but Mr j Massey replied that he had no one in j view who <ould <;ome out and siKees.s- ---| fully contest the .seat at that late hour. He (Mr F^aroe) repeated that ibis suggestion was made merely to try and push him ou;.\ and Mr Powdrell did not care in the i^ust whether -the seat wm won or lost so long as he could ieep Pearce cut. That was the true position. > Mil MASSEY'S TELEGRAMS. In view of statements tbnt had been n>ads». ho drsired to quote telegrams received fron: the Prime Minister endorsing his candidature hi the Reform yin-

teresfc. The first was sent to Mr Hemingway in his capacity a.rs one of the executive of the Reform League of New Zealand. It was dated October 8, and was as follows: — "The elections are approaching, and I trust that the electors of Paten will again return Mr Pearce as their Parliamentary representative for the reason that there is no shrewder or more energetic: member in the House, no man who looks more closely after the interests of bis constituents, tr who is more keenly fuixious to promote the welfare of the country than tlm present member for Patea. Nov.- Zealand needs more men of the stamp of Mr Pearce." Now. Mr Di'kie, at Waverley, when hawking a petition round, characterised this telegram as a forgery. In spite of .such a, statement he could onry geL ;jl signatures to Irs petition out of a population of nearly" 700 voters! He (Mr Pearce) got this information from the Reform organiser. Mr Hemingway, being d?siro«s of giving publicity to this telegram, asked Mr Mas?ey for his per. mission to do so, and Mr Massey, on November 2, replied: "No objetcion to suggested action." Mr Hemingway a'so wrote to the Premier asking him to endorse Mr Pearce's candidature in the Iteform interest, and received this reply: "Novembci d. —Thanks for letter. The only statement I can make is that I have endorsed Mr Pearce's candidature as a loyal and useful memixjr of the party.—(Sgd.) W. Jf. Massey." J

In his address at Whenuakura Mr Powdrell referred tf> those telegrams, and this was an extract from his remarks :

"He (Mr Powdrell) also referred to Mr'Massey's message with regard to Mr Peane, stating that it had been raked tip live or six weeks after having been received."

If Mr Powdrell or anyone else entertuined an\ doubts that Mr Massey still endorsed his (Mr .Pearce'a) candidature, he would like to read1 the following telegram snnt by Mr Massey from " inverc-argill on Staturday last, but only reached Mr Pearce that clay (Monday) : " With reference to the approaching election for the Patea seat, " ou have n;y authority for stating that yon are the.Government candidate for Patea. I hope the eiectors of Patea will avoid splitting, and, bearing in mind the serious position o;> the country owing to the possibility of the revolutionaries being able to secure balance of power, the supporters of tlie "Reform Party will unite to return the man who has served them loyally and faithfully during the past 11 years. —(Sgd.) W. F. Massey.''

MR POWDEELL NO TRUE RE-

FORMER

He mertioned at the beginning of ins address that he would show that Mr Powdrell was only a so-called Reformer, and anyone supporting the Reform Party in tin's electorate should remember that, despite the fact that he submitted himself for' nomination in an ailjoiniug electorate —in a n electorate where he was to ho supported by the dairymen of the country because of the work he had accomplished in regard to to butt jr. and cheese business, and had subsequently become chairman of the big "Kaupokonui Factory—in spite of all his work in the dairying industry he was at the bottom of the selection .if candidates for Egmont —-the great dairying electorate. There were three names submitted —Messrs Hawken, Powdrell, and Buekeridge. Mr Hawken secured more votes than the other two together, and Mi: Buckeridge got one mere 1 han Mr Powdrell. And then he comes along and i'oistu himself on the Pa tea electorate, risking the loss of the scat to the Refoi-m Party by attempting to s-»lit the votes. He would like to quote the 'following extract from Air i'owd'vll's Patea speech:' ' uMv Powdrell said one thing he ' would say about Sir Joseph Ward was that it would be a, loss-to the country if lie were out of the Cabinet."

Mr Powdrel: considers that Mr Ward should be in the Cabinet—a so-called Refrm candidate considers that it was as necessary to have Sir Joseph Ward in the Cabinet as Mr Mass-ey. Mr Powdrell may try to twist that statement, but he would like to say that a man had volunteered th? information that hfvha-d heii.rd Mr Powdrell repeat it on thre-j d'ffcrent occasions. He (Mr Pearce■> was sneaking at Eapanui, near Wangami, when he referred to this, and a reporter of the WanTanni Cbro'iicle. who was there, said: "I heard Powdrell make that same statement, and,l was very myth surprised that lie made it." There was, therefore, ample evidence to prove that Mr Powdrell had ■mads that statement, and surely, holding" such views, he could not be considered a, Reiorm Party candidate, lilectcrs must recognise that their only chance of winning the seat for the Reform Party was by giving him (Mr Pearce) a solid vote on the ]7th, and he had no doubt they would do so.

Mr Pearce. in the course'of his address, referred to many of the political questions of the day, mainly on the lin^s of his recent Hawera speech, which was fiv'lv reported in these columns. At the conclusion of his address th? eh.air.man moved: "That this meetin-'j ien'Jeis Mr Pearce a hearty vcte of thanks for his address, and expresses its confidence in the P-cform Government." Seconded and carried unani-

mously