WHAT'S WRONG WITH WELLINGTON NORTH?

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 134, 23 February 1918, Page 8

WHAT'S WRONG WITH WELLINGTON NORTH?

4 VOTE-SPLITTING AND MR. HOLLAND (By An Outsider.) What is the matter with Wellington »—and especially Wolliiigton North!' Are the people of the Empire City losing their heads or are wo in other parts of New Zealand misjudging the election prospects? Tho story that reaches us is that while the National Government candidate 1 ; are cutting one another's throats Mr. Holland, tho gentleman who is "anti" practically everything that makes for war-winning, will grab the seat. What a descent! From Mr. Herdman to Mr. Holland. To an outside onlooker, Mr. Holland's election speeches are very amusing. The off-chance that lie may slip in between Mr. Luke and Mr. Brandon has given him an importance that he does not possess. _ His criticisms are especially diverting. He has forgotten that "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Ho is very severe on- those who exploit the public by advancing prices owing to the war. Yet, strange to Ea.y Mr. Holland's own paper, the "Maoriland Worker." was one of tho first paiiors in New Zealand —'f pot the first—to put up its price after tho war 'began. Then, not content with exploiting his readers—for whom Ins heart bleeds according to his speeches —they weie cajoled and bounced into subscribing over a thousand pounds for his paper, which—like "Comrade Dowdall (according to Mr. Hoilnnd) —is 0110 of tho best a-sists of tun National Government. Mr. Holland wilj' scream that it is run 111 tho interests of Labour. . One of tlw most level-headed Labour members said recently that if e- general election took place he was afraid, hardly a Labotfr member would go back owing to Mr. Holland and the "Maoriland Worker." Mr. Holland declared in his opening speech of tho election campaign: "The people of New Zealand had not and had never been in favour of conscription.

. . . Labour stood uneqnivocablv for the repeal of the conscript law." When Mr. Holland is reminded that members of Parliament voted an _ overwhelming majority for conscription 1.-e declared that the members did not represent the people's opinions. Nothing but a vote on the question of conscription will satisfy him. But will it? Mr. Holland sneers at the'ability of the members of the National Government, and poses on the platform as an intellectual athlete. He. certainly can claim great agility in eluding his otvii opinions. He is so slippery that his own statements cannot pin him down.

For example, Christchurcli is the home of the pacifist crank. On April 18 last year, just before the municipal election at Christchurch, which was fought 011 the conscription issue, Mr. Holland or his paper, "The Maoriland Worker," said: "A municipal victory for Labour would be regarded as a victory over conscription—which it will be, of course." The victory did not come off, but did that affect this "Yes-No" juggler with facts? Not a bit of it. On May 2 his paper said: "The municipal results do not alter the fact that . tlie people of New Zealand are anti-conscriptionist." Then to complete the comio opera. "The Vag," the Christchurch correspondent of the "Maoriland Worker," _ lifted up his voice and wept a jeremiad in its columns. It was headed, "After tho Municipal Fight," and ran as follows:—

"It-is no use our blinking our eyes and wondering what has hit us: it is 110 use putting up this, that, and the other excuse. Tho Conservatives of. Christchurch won out yesterday. Two-thirds, and more than two-thirds, voted' in favour of the Government, in favour 'of conscription. . . . 'Vox populi, vox Dei' —the voice of the people has been heard, and they have said exactly what they meant at that moment. -The majority—nearly eighteen thousand people out of a Toll of twenty-six thousand—went to the poll. Twelve thousand one hundred and three voted for tlie Government and all the Government stands for. . / . The minority

—five thousand ' three hundred and eighty-five people—voted against conscription, against tho Government and nil the Government stands for. . . .

We have not much to congratulate ourselves upon on this vote. Let us be honest with ourselves. There arc four thousand organised workers affiliated with tlie Federation of Labour living within the citv. That should have meant at least eight thousand votes for Labour. In addition to this we have the railway servants, the waterside workers, and manv other unions not affiliated to the Trades Hall. We ought to have rcot some of tiiese. The fight? Never before has there been such a fight as this in this city. . ~ . Even-thing that could be done was done. If the fight was coming again to-morrow we could not do better We were well organised ; we held glorious meetings; we had record attendances and big collections; we were never short of money, although we could have spent more; a hundred thousand pieces of. literature tcw distributed, and distributed well. Night after night a noble band of volunteers trudged around this city and dm this work! The city was'mapped out, in blocks; no one was missed ; everyone worked well. We were beaten." Compare this wail in Mr. Holland's own paper with his in his speech. "Labour stood unequivocally for the reoeal of the conscript law." "The people of New Zealand," lie declared, "had not, and had never been, in favour of conscription," So he thinks people can be humbugged, and no doubt some of them can. Why did not the National Government publish this wail from the "Maoriland Worker" throughout Australia, in answer to the barefaced misstatements sent from New Zealand about conscription ? Mr. Holland is very indignant about the treatment of conscientious cbjcctors. Are bis statements any more reliable about them than his statements about conscription? But the amusing part is his virtuous indignation against the Prime Minister for printing the letter from the parent of a conscientious objector. But for the ienoth of this effusion it would he easy to parallel much of the hysterical bitterness and hate and abuse of that letter with extracts from Mr. Holland's own leading articles in Ills own paper. But it is in statesmanship that in'o Red Feds excel. This is their recipe, foi winning the war, as sent by i.hein last year to the Acting-Prime Minister :— W 7 o have spent practically fiftfen . millions on training, transport, pay, and allowances: for this amount from seven hundred and fifty thousand to a million Russians , . . could have been nlaced in the field

iiroperiy equipped. This statesmanlike advice to the Acting-Prime Minister concluded thus. —"This letter is endorsed by the unanimous vote of the nxccut.ve of the union, who state it fully expresses the opinion of members.lt is furthcj endorsed bv Mr. Holland, by he;in; printed in full in a conspicuous part of Mr. Holland's paper, "The Maorilaw' Worker."

If this brilliant advice had been followed wo would have neither money nor soldiers to-day. But would that trouble them ? Tbo tender consciences of these anti-militarists do not permit them to fight for their own liberty, but their consciences permit them to propose hiring a million ignorant Russian peasants'- to fight for them. And Mr. Holland gets up and prates about Christ being jettisoned.. When the facts of German barbarism in Belgium and Northern Franco horrified the world, it was said in Mr.

Holland's paper, ''The Maoriland Worker : "Olio would think they had lieen expecting a Sunday school treat or something of the like when the war came along.''

And the "Reformers" in Wellington Noith squabble amongst themselves, and open the way to Mr. Holland's entry into Parliament as the successor to Mr. Herdman. Cannot Mr. Brandon be induced to see this?