MR. BRANDON AND THE REFORM PARTY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 138, 28 February 1918, Page 6

MR. BRANDON AND THE REFORM PARTY

THE FACTS

A good deal of controversy has raged round the question of whether or not Mr. Brandon's name was brought forward at a meeting of the lieform, Party as a possible candidate in the present election contest. The question is of interest only because Mr. Brandon has attempted to justify his vote-splitting candidature on the ground that lie objected to Mr. Luke being thrust .on tho electorate at the dictation of the party "boss."

Mr. Brandon's statements on this point have been contradicted through the public Press by the Prime Minister and others present at the Eeform Party's meetings, but last evening Mr. Brandon returned to tho subject and published the following statement in the "Evening Post":— I repeat that nothing was said at the meeting that could possibly be construed into a request or a suggestion that I should stand. I ivas present at the meeting, Mr. von Haast was not. I have tho authority of the Hon. J. G. Vi. Aitkcn, who was also present at the meeting, to say that he fully confirms my statement. This statement was made in reply to the following by Mr. von Haast:— There were about 26 people present at the [Reform Party] meeting, including Mr. Massey, and their evidence, I feel confident; will be that my statement is absolutely correct, that a suggestion was made to Mr> Brandon by Mr. Clark that he should stand, and that he,did decline. To say that no suggestion was made because it was informal is only another of those quibbles and evasions that have been so characteristic .in Mr. Brandon's campaign. slr Brandon, it will he noted, states that the Hon. J. G. AV. Aitken "fully confirms" his statement as given aTiove. This is what Mr. Aitken actually says in a letter to the editor of Ihb Dominion received at this office last evening:— Dear Mr. Editor,— In re Wellington North Election. I have been appealed to by a number of people as to what occurred at a certain meeting of tho Reform Party when considering , who was to be the candidate for tho seat. I will set out in one or two sentences what did occur m reference to Mr. Brandon becoming a candidate. One of the members ot' the party made reference to Mr. Brandon's father's services to the Dominion, and said that he often wondered why Mr. Brandon had not himself followed in his father s footsteps. He (Mr. Brandon) replied stating certain reasons why men should delay entering into politics, and in general terms stating that he had no intention ot being a candidate. My memory does not recall tho exact, words used, but the effect made on my mind is as I have set out.—l am, etc "' John G. W. Aitken. Wellington, 27th Feb., 1918. Mr. Aitken, it will be seen, says that one of those present at the meeting did refer to Mr. Brandon "following in his father's footsteps," and it is obvious that he must have conveyed the impression that he was suggesting that Mr. Brandon should stand for the seat, for Mr. Brandon himself, so Mr Aitken tells us, stated in reply to the suggestion that "ho had no intention of being a candidate," If no berious sucrcrestion were put forward, why should Mr. Brandon explain why he could not stand? , But there is other/ evidence. Last evening, to clear the matter up, wo made inquiries and endeavoured to get into touch with as many as possible ot those present at the meeting, lhe result was that in all cases those questioned expressed the samo opinion. That was that Mr. I. Clark did suggest Mr. Brandon as a possible candidate, and that Mr. Brandon gave Teasons why he had not come forward. _ and indicating that he was not in a position t<, do so. Amongst those we wero ablo to communicate- with and who agreed as to the facts stated ahore were the Prime Minister. Mrs. Sefton Moorhousc. Mrs. O)r.) Adams. Mrs. Darling, Mrs. Earle, Mr. D. F. Skinner, Mr. I. Ralck, Captain Barclay, and Mr. 1. Clark, the gentleman who suggested that Mr. Brandon should follow in the footsteps of his father. _ Whatever Mr. Brandon's view of what occurred may be it is plain that it is not in accord with that of others present at the meeting, and the public can judge for themselves how little ground he has for grievance, and how far the resentment of the Eeform Pnxfcy of his action and attitude is justified.