Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 3 November 1928, Page 4

Mn Skddon* did quite right to draw attention to the serious indiscretion (to call it nothing worse) of Mr 0 Brien in regard to the latter’s comments on the decisions of the Election Court. Mr O’Brien still smarting under the disappointment of his last defeat, was constrained to say. speaking of their Honors presiding over the Election Court, that “the Judges looked after Mr Seddon’s interests." Mr Seddon properly stated that was a very wrong statement to make in any case. Tt was doubly wrong to insinuate such a thing in a district where there is some disposition among rlass to defy the law and ridicule those who have to admin-

ister it. AA'e see in Australia where a Judge's decision is ignored and spurned liv the strikers and a condition of ’revolt existed as at Adelaide and Molls) time, "'here even human life was in danger, to say nothing of the. loss of property by the action of the strikers. Mr O’Brien could easily be charged with inciting a certain class here, who are all too ready to deny freedom to others so long as they may have license to do as they wish. A\e ..now too. in the 11)13 strike in Wellington how Mr Holland exhorted the police and the naval force not to regard their duty a.s their first care in securing order and maintaining the law. Air O’Brien by flaunting the Judges of the Supreme Court, and making the insinuations he did. likewise hold the course of justice up to contempt, and invited those who believed him and think with him in belief engendered in his mind, that their Honors were deliberately unfair in order that Mr Seddon should have a seat in Parliament. Mr O’Brien tries to make a martyr of himself in tne. matter, but he speaks much outside the facts, a.s will he realised by all fair minded people who see the analogy between the Westland and Lyttelton seats, the contests in each instance being ties. In the Westland FJection there was a tie as between tire National candidate' and the Labour candidate. In the Lyttelton instance the tie was between the Reform candidate and the Labour candidate. Now, if there was anything in this insinuation of Mr O’Brien’s that the Judges concerned were opposed to Labour, why was Mr M’Combs (Labour) ultimately elected for Lyttelton over .Ur Lyons (Reform)? The same Judges sat in respect to both petitions, but the fact was that the law as it affected Uestland similarly affected Lyttelton, and in the latter instance Mr M'Combs had the legal advantage which in the Westland case went to Mr Seddon. On the allocation of the valid votes in dispute by the Judges Mr Seddon was declared elected by 12 votes and Mr M’Conibs was declared elected by 11 votes. This comparison clears up the matter instantly, and shows the Judges were consistent and fair alike in both petitions as all lovers of justice would expect them to be. Mr O’Brien has certainly gone too far in the matter, and should retract with the best grace possible in the least time possible.