The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 29, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1945, 29 November 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, NOV 29, 1906.

Everyone who has taken an interest in the progress and development of the colonial organisation known as the Farmers’ Union cannot fail to have noticed the prominent part taken in its work by its goneral secretary, Mr McCurdy, who retires from that position by voluntary resignation at the end of this month, and no one will say that his labors have not in the main merited some recognition on the part of members of that organisation. At the same time tho fact cannot be overlooked that Mr McCurdy’s resignation of that office is the direct result of a serious dilference between himself and tho Union’s Advisory Board, the alleged facts of which have boon fully published in tho Evening Post of Friday last, wherein it is stated that a Supreme Court action on the part of the secretary to recover some £2UU for services rendered by himself, his wife, and daughter, is to eventuate very shortly. The story as told by the ‘ Post ’ is Mr McCurdy’s story, to which the Advisory Board has yet had no opportunity to reply even if it felt so disposed, and as there are always two sides to a question, common fairness dictates that no definite opinions should bo formed upon the matter until both sides avo told or until the action which is now practically sub judice is heard. To suggest, therefore, that a movement should bo started to get up a testimonial to Mr McCurdy at this stage, and before wo even know that his resignation will bo acceptod, is, to say tho least of it, a display of the most execrable taste and unfair* ness, for to act upon such a suggestion would ba to condemn tho Advisory Board unheard and to decide the impending action upon tho mere published statement of tho party most interested. And yet that is just what our evoning contemporary has done with all the force at its command ; but the burden of its song is clearly not so much a burning desire for Mr McCur

dy’a welfare as to split the Farmers’ Union in twain for the benefit of the political party to which our contemporary has so lately allied itself. That such is its main object is made but too apparent iu the concluding sentences, and hence its impassioned appeal on

bolm’.f of Me McCurdy personally liavors most strongly of hisinconty. Hio tiino may come when such an appeal might bo advanced with propriety ; but that timo is not now, Without going into tlio merits or (ismorits of Mr McCurdy’s personal services to the Union, a mattor that will boat bo deferred until it can bo douo without prejudice to tho interests of either parly to tho dispute, wo may point out that there was a more straightforward way of dealing with iho question of limitation of area and tho Union’s aUiiuio thereon; but that way would not have aorvod tho double purpose of causing a rift and securing die assistance of personal sympathy lor Ur McCurdy obtained by subterfuge to triako it as wide as possible in the iutorests of party politics—in die interests of a party in politics in face that would, have burst up the Farmers’ Union long ago if the way could have been found to do it If it is a fact that the dispute between the Advisory 13 mvd and tiio general secretary has been eaust-d solely by tho question oi limitation of area and for no other cause, and if it is a fact that the President has declared against limitation, wo have no heahntion in saying that tho President is wrong and that Mr McCurdy deserves his testimonial for standing out on tho point; but we must not forget that mail his speeches the President favored the limitation, nor has ho the power to expunge that declaration from the Union’s platform. Indo; d wo cannot yet believe that ho could so far forget himself and bis former expressions as to attempt to do ko. Then) is but one conclusion possible, therefore, to bo arrived at upon present information, and that is that there is some-misunderstanding between tho parties of which the public yet know nothing, and should reserve its opinions until tho other side is hogl'd. It may be, of course, that Mr Wilson has altered his expressed opiuions upon the question of tion, which have hithorto been in accord with the Union’s platform ; but if ho has done so, no one can deny him his right in that respect, although limy may question his wisdom. lu> deed we would bo ono of the first to tied fault with him on that score ; yot, knowing his inability to tamper with the Union’s platform except in tho constitutional, way, we decline to endorse the suggestion that tkero is any necessity for Mr McCurdy or anyone else to sot up the bogey of “ McCurdy and limitation v. Wilson and aggregation,” a bogey which, as wo have said, has been advanced for a sinister purpose, and not in tho interests of the farmers or their Union, who would do well to beware oi false frionda who, while professing friendship, urge them on to the destruction of tlieir own interests under tho guise of misdirected sympathy.