MR. BROWNE EXPLAINS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 62, 6 December 1919, Page 15

MR. BROWNE EXPLAINS

Sir—l nm sorry that I .did not express myself clearly enough for you to understand my reference to "vote splitting" last night. Apparently you think that I imagine that when there are two candidates in the field 'representing two distinct parties, and a third candidate representing a third party come.? out, (his is a case of "vole splitting." Not in the least. That is precisely what I have dono myself. I havo come out for Wellington North as/a Liberal, when thoro were already a Bcform and a Labour candidato in the field; and far from admitting that I have done wrong, I am prepared to defend it nnvwhero and everywhere. The easo of "vote splitting" that I quoted was quite different. In a contest where two candidatcs-ono Liberal, one Reform— were standing, a third candidato appeared, posing ns a Labour man, but in reality a Reformer in disguise. Now. lie would certainly get somo of the Liberal votes Because there is a natural affinity I between Liberalism and Moderate Labour -not tho extremist type of Labour winch, so far as I can see, has no affinity with anything elso in the civilised world—and the Labour votes which would have gone to tho Liberal candidate before the supposed Labour man came out would certainly not havo gone to the Reformer. Therefore, l>y disguising one of their own number ns a Labour candidate the Reformers would he able, in the case I havo quoted, to reduce the Liberal vote without reducing their own. Now, what parallel is there between that case and mine? To make out any analogy ibctwoen them, yon havo to nssiimo cither that I am a disguised Reformer, posing ns a Liberal, m which case I would take somo of the votes that would have gone to Mr. Read, and Labour I would complain of vote splitting: or that I am a disguised Labourite, posing as a Liberal, in which case I would got some of the Moderate Reform votes from those who wero Liberal at heart, but wanted to avoid voting for Labour and so were prepared to support Mr. Luke-in which case Rcfonn would havo reason to complain. But as I am undoubtedly a Liberal, and not even The Dominion has yet accused me of being anybody else in disguise therefore I am not vote splitting. Nobody has a right to complain, and the elaborate joke that you have endeavour; ed to concoct at my expense falls rather But what does this talk about alleged vote splitting mean in such an-electorate as Wellington North? As I have said, 1 hold that every party ought _to bo re- j presented at any clechon-m fact, l go farther and say that every political party of any size or importance ought to bo represented in Parliament., that is why I support proportional representa-tion-tho only system which I know ot that can produce this result. Now, Mr. Luke, I believe, told his audience tho other night, that he objects to proportional representation, and that mean 3 that ho docs not see why there should bo the representation for every existing party in tho House; and so he naturally objects to my candidature. But what does this really mean? When The Dominion tells mo on Mr. Luke's behalf thnt I am voto sulitting, doesn't it mean that the Reform Party think they ought to be allowed to secure this seat without the inconvenient intervention of Liberalism? That they have a sort of natural right to carry elections against any party they are strong enough to beat, but that everybody else ought to "keep off the grass ? After all, what in my caso has Mr. Luke to complain of? If thero had been no Liberal candidate, all tho votes cast at the poll would have been recorded for Mr. Luke or Mr. Read. This means that what votes I get will .be subtracted partly from Mr. Read's total, partly from Mr. Luke's. Now, the votes I get that would otherwiso have gone to Mr. Read would never have gone to Mr. Lukefor Labour very rightly has nothing to do with "Reform." And tho votes that would otherwise havo gone to Mr. Luke, but .will be given to mo, must be the votes of Liberals who are only too glad to have a chance of voting for a Liberal candidate, but, failing him, would have voted for Mr. Luke, only because they were doubtful whether Mr. Read is "extremist" or not, and they don't want to have it on their consciences that they havo put another Holland or Semplo into the House. Well, all this means that the votes that will put mo into Parliament'will be partly labour votes that Mr. Luke would never have got, and partly Liberal votes to which he-aa a "Reformer"—never had any right. So, as I said before, I don't quite seo what cause he has to complain. As I havo never written a letter to The Dominion- before, I hope, Mr. Editor, that you will oxcuso tho length of this epistle; but I want to say one thing more-. Isn't tho real meaning of all your complaints about Liberalism just now something like this—that the "Reformers" can't forgive the Liberals for taking up an independent position and refusing to form a coalition with them that would havo kept the Masseyites in power'for an indefinite time to come? They can t forgive the Liberals' for breaking away 'from that "unholy alliance-'" which Sir Joseph Ward and his party accepted only for patriotic and public-spirited reasons "for the duration of tho war," and which very rightly and- properly lapsed as soon a.s 'the- war'finished. You know thnt they have been pers'stently begging tho Liberals to stand in with them against Labour, and you, Sir, are so impressed with the importance of this point of view that yon actually tell me-1 am 'splitting votes" when I. venture to come forward to represent the Liberal, interest in an electorate that might otherwise go to "Reform." Surely it is high time for the Masseyites to admit that between them and -Liberalism, there is "a great gulf fixed." I neither expect nor desire support from those who hold the "Reform" faith of the true, Conservative stamp. But I havo no doubt that every progressive Liberal who sympathises as Ido w ; th all the reasonable aspirations of Labour will get a good deal of support from the moderate Labourites. However, I mav conclude by saving that I am not troubling about "vote-sphttmg or eonnHiiL' heads just now. I am confident that! could win this seat if ffither Mr. Luke or Mr. Read stood aside, ond the contest was a straight-out fight between Liberalism and extremo Labour or Liberalism and Reform. But I am quito content to seo the threo parties represented in the fight. I am not complninin" about vote-splitting, for I am quiteprepared to stand on my own feet and "face tho music." I am-going to win. in any case-so why worry ?-I am. etc., . 11. OAKLEY BROWNE. [We could have wished that Mr. Browne had been ablo to explain what ho really did mean in fewer words. It was hardlv necessary for him to elaborate at such length his idea that vote-splitting to the injury of a Liberal candidate is wholly reprehensible, while vote-splitting-which is'likely to injure a Reform candidate :'s right and commendable. -No one, wo imagine, questions Mr. Browne s right to offer his services; and the electors will, of course, decide for themselves whether they think his services worth having. As to the mass of somewhat blatant irrelevanwes with which Mr. Brown* has chosen to waste our space, it mav be hoped that tho polling result will leave him more cnV'ghtened as to his own political limitations, and less ready to undcr-estimato the intelligence ot the electors of Wellington North.!