DISSENSION

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1930, Page 7

DISSENSION

MR HUGHES’S PARTY,

MR, WALTER MARKS REBELS,

SYDNEY, September 18. There were many who predicted that Mr Walter Marks, one of the breakaways from the Nationalists before tiie last Federal Election, would not for •' long be content with the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Mr W. M. Hughes, who brought into being the Australian Party. This Party according to its founder, would sweep the polls because of its 11011-Party character, which sounds as paradoxical as it really is. Petty jealousies and disputes have crept into its counsels to make it appear erroneous to suggest that it stood for Australia first.

Mi* Hughes is still as fiery as ever. Advancing age has not slowed down his brain or made him any the less willing for a fight. showed that when he issued a booklet condemning all the home truths that had been utter ed by Sir Otto Niemeyer. It was treatise of this book that he lost his right hand man, Mr Walter Marks, and the loss has come at a time when stalwarts can ill be spared, for the Australian Party is just entering on its first real fight with the commencement of the New South Wales general election campaign, The defection will have serious results for the Party, for above all things there was peed for it to show that it wag united and in earnest. The statement issued by Mr Marks best explains his action. Here it is:— “I voted against the Bruce-Pago Government because it intended to evacuate the field of Federal Arbitration without a mandate from the people, and also because this matter was no* brought before the Party. The same applies to the prosecution of Mr Jdhn Brown, and also to the withdrawal of that prosecution. They , did not come before the Party. Mr Hughes has erred in the same'manner. As one of the founders of the Australian Party I had no knowledge whatsoever of the advent of bis booklet, ‘Bond or Free.’ Though I was with him’ in Melbourne throughout last week at tne Australian Party’s first Victorian conference and when the booklet was being published in Sydney, he never mentioned the matter to myself or to the conference. Whilst agreeing with many of his contentions, there are several others on which I cannot follow him, more especially the bitter, satirical, personal attack on Sir Otto Niemeyer, a distinguished guest of our Commonwealth.

“I do not agree with all of Sir Otto’s contentions, but lie was our guest. The same applies to certain references in the booklet to England herself and to the Bank of England. It is not sporting, and without a doubt it is nonAustralian. In short, the position is not of my making. I was in no way conferred with, and so I cannot be bound to follow the lead set. I will still continue as in the past to work for all the people and not for any one section.”