THEIR WORD OF HONOUR.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1014, 2 March 1912, Page 3

THEIR WORD OF HONOUR.

SOMETHING ABOUT PLEDGES.

Masterton Times, prior to the division :—“ We think that Mr Robertson will scrupulously observe his election pledge.”

Thus the Wairarapa News : “Political pledges may be good—they may, in plain terras, express •■he contract between the politician and the electors to whom he owes his position, but a political pledge is, in fact, the price of the seat occupied by the one who gives it —the seal of a political bargain. , . . . The pledged man is not a free man ; his own common sense may quickly show him that the thing he is pledged to may be inimical to the very people who hold his pledge, and quits disastrous to the country at large, but his word has been blindly given, and even when his eyes are opened he must act upon it or give up his seat.”

Patea Press; —“Sir Joseph Ward has gained a victory it is true, but at what a price ! The dishonoured pledges of public men on the threshold of their political careers. These gentlemen, we venture to say. will realise to the full in the near future that place, profit and power are frail and fickle things, and that the money is not yet coined, uor the position yet placed in the gift of man that can recompense one for the loss of honour and self-respect. Under the circumstances, the gentlemen who have seen fit to break their pledges should, in accordance with constitutional custom, place themselves in the bauds of their constituents forthwith, and accept their veirdict on their conduct. The question is, will they do it ?”

Opunake Times : —“ Mr Payne stood for Grey Lynn against a member of the Liberal party, Mr Fowlds. Finding that he could not beat his opponent without the help of the o.>u >sitiou, he obtained that help by !>i ! promise of his vote to turn om. the Ward Government. That promise his explanation does not release him from. As is Mr Payne, so are Messrs Veitch and Robertson. It may be urged that the Government changed the situation by bringing down a new programme. But there was no reserve covering a new programme in the promise, which was to turn out the Government, and therefore the promise ought to stand. This is a thing above party politics. It touches personal honour, aud when personal honour is not sacred it will be a bad day for New Zealand. The matter was so simple ; for the promise kept in the first crucial division involved freedom ever after. The only possible reply is that it is a question of tactics, but that only means that it appeared to be more easy to beat the Conservatives by breaking the promise which got their help than by keeping it. Such a plea would be further degradation.”

Says the Wellington Post: —“If election pledges, openly given on the hustings, are not to be treated by all parties and all members as inviolable, what will be left of the honour of politics

How can a labour Union or a public meeting release a man from a pledge that he has given to another body ? A Labour Union may be taken to represent the views of organised Labour, and a public meeting to represent those of the few hundred persons attending it. But what about the thousands who stay away from the meeting, and who are not members of the union ? The whole point of the pledges given by Labour candidates to vote against the Government is that they were given to secure, and did secure, the votes of electors who were ready to sink their objections to the Labour programme in order to effect what they regarded as the paramount object, viz., the defeat of the Government. Whether the electors who so voted were many or tew —and, as a matter ol fact, they were in most cases decidedly more numerous than the out-and-out supporter’s of the successful Labour candidates—it is perfectly clear that the undertaking on the faith ox which their support was obtained cannot be honourably repudiated at the instance of anybody else. No amount- of sophistry can explain away this imperative obligation of good faith. Not even the supposed interests of the Labour Party should be allowed to weigh for one moment against the word of honour that its representatives have passed to electors of another political colour. We say the ‘supposed’ interests of the party, for we cannot conceive that the real interests of Labour can p ssibly be advanced by the public proclamation that its representatives have no scruple about repudiating the open, unequivocal, and unconditional promise by which they have secured election. ‘He that sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance’ —is this the model which the promoters of a great humanitarian movement are to set before them ? or are they to pose from the outset as disciples of Machiavelli ? It were surely better for a party which in ordinary course has a great future before it that a millstone were hanged about its neck and that it were cast into the depths of the political sea, than that any others of its Parliamentary representatives should give occasiou to the blasphemer to say that the honour of a Labour member does not count.”

Stratford Post: —“ The moral of all this is that candidates should either decline pledges altogether—or keep them. That is the only proper altitude.”

The N.Z. Times carefully avoid 3 any reference to pledges, but says :—“ Mr Robertson’s final determination to throw in his lot with the Liberals will subject him to no small measure of obloquy.”

Wellington Free Lance; —“Mr Robertson’s vote was uncertain up to Tuesday, but after much cogitation he has cast it at last for the Liberal side. He has evidently changed his mind, as Mr Payne has done, since he spoke on the hustings.”

Petone Chronicle: —■ “The mock-moralists who are now talking at large about Messrs Payne and Robertson’s pledge-breaking know that if there is anything dishonourable attaching to anyone in connection with what has happened, it is not the election pledgebreaking that may be so catalogued. The dishonour is with those who harried and worried the men whom they assisted to get into the House to serve their own purposes.’.’

Oatnaru Mail : —“The Government wins by the casting vote of the Speaker, which was given according to ancient usage under the circumstances. It does not, however, represent the real position, which was complicated by the pledges given under stress of circumstances, by two of the Labour members. . . . • Labour is sensible of the vast mistake it made at the polls, and has determined to be faithful iu future to the alliance which has dous so much for its cause.”

Otago Daily Times ; —“We cannot help thinking that the action of two members of the Labour Party of four, in repudiating their solemn pledges to the electors will do an immense injury to the party to which they belong. Whether it does that or not, however, it must be perfectly evident that the political days of these two individuals will be brief. Strangely enough, Mr Robertson expressed in the course of his speech a hope that the Labour Party would raise politics in the country to a higher level than that of the past. We may remind Mr Robertson, however, that it is not apon a foundation of broken pledges that any member or party of members will improve the tone of politics.”

Auckland Herald : “The Government scored last night one of those barren victories which are more to be avoided by popular parties than any defeat, for it was due solely to the fact that several members were induced to break their election pledges, and thus to defeat not only Mr Massey’s noconfidence motion, but the distinct and unmistakable intention of the country. That some excuse and apology might be forthcoming for this disregard of political pledges was evidently one of the causes for the extraordinary bundle of protestations and promises termed the Governor’s speech, but it is not to be thought that the electorates will accept them as readily when they have an opportunity to give an opinion on the subject. Some allowance may possibly be made for inexperienced members who were misled by belated professions, aud who were evidently somewhat confused as to when, where, aud how Ministerial pledges are to be kept and individual pledgee- to be broken.”

Christchurch livening News “A pair of political traitors made bridges of their bodies last night, and the Government passed over them to temporary safety. . . . There is not much in politics at any time for the best of men. There is nothing at all if a man cannot be a politician and retain the honour, respect and confidence

ol the people, . . . How can a man who is ready to profit by the broken pledges 01 others expect to be uustedfora moment himself ? What shred of respect can anyone entertain for the Prime Minister who has to buy the support of the pledge-breakers with the promise of his resigualiou ? .

. . . There is a theory in commerce, that the average man is pretty honest, and our theory of politics is that the average elector infinitely prefers the politician who goes straight, and that he has nothing ’ but contempt for any other kind, notwithstanding the cheap cynicisms one may hear on the cars and in the barbers’ shops on occasions such as the present.” Pahiatua Herald : “Even if it is impossible to bring a blush to the cheeks of Sir Joseph Ward and Co., by reminding them that they only hold office by the votes of men who have betrayed the confidence of the electors, the gravest offence that any member can commit, it is at least comforting to know that many of their supporters, not exactly beyond the pale, blush for them instead. . . . The electors, in the event of an election, will take good care then that no pledge-breaker, or a man who is not to be depended on, is returned to the House. . . . After securing the support of pledge-breakers Payne and Robertson, votes which any party with any sense of political honour would have indignantly repudiated, the Ministry, all along boastful of a working majority, was only able to tie with the doughty representatives 01 the Reform Party. . , . It is worse than defeat, because it is victory obtained at the price ot

the betrayal of the electors who sent at least two men there to vote otherwise. . . . Messrs Payne

and Robertson, by breaking their pledges iu voting for Wardism last night, have besmirched the name of Labour to such an extent that it is doubtful whether any Labour member beyond the faithful Mr Veitch will be returned to the new Parliament.”

Southland Times: “Of the 41 pledged members 39 cast their votes for Mr Massey’s amendment, thus keeping faith with their constituents. The other two, Messrs Payne and Robertson, broke their pledges, the former frankly and without compunction in what he considers the interests of Labour, and the latter after an astute example of casuistry iu his lecturette on howi to break the letter of a pledge without breaking its spirit. Now as regards these pledges it may be said that too much is being made of a change of mind which was due to nothing except the conviction on the part of the pledge breakers that when they gave their promises they did not know everything. But that contention will not hold, for apart from the pledges it has to be borne iu mind that Messrs Payne and Robertson won their seats against strong GoverumeUt opposition with the assistance of the supporters of the Reform party. Mr Payne sits in the House because he defeated Mr Fowlds, and as Mr Fowlds had all the Liberal support, Mr Payne owes nothing to Liberalism. Similarly, Mr Robertson had the full strength of Liberalism ranged agaiust him iu Otaki behind the standard of Mr Field. Had Messrs Payne and Robertson been returned agaiust Opposition candidates there might be some colour of excuse for their breach 0! faith, but they were returned against strong Government candidates, and they owe their positions to Opposition support.”

Thus the Dominion: “ The Ward Government received a temporary respite last evening by means of the dishonoured votes of members elected pledged to turn it out of office, and finally winning a temporary success by means of the votes of members talse to their constituents aud false to their election pledges. Those members who have broken their pledges to their constituents may well be left to their electors to deal with, if Mr Robertson thinks that anyone is likely to swallow the flimsy pretext he puts forward as a reason tor his vote to retain in office an Administration he had condemned and promised to vote against, he greatly under-estimates the intelligence ot the public. There is not the least reason for him to fear that resort will be made to innuendo and slander to attack him for his betrayal of those who voted foi him in the belief that he would keep his word to oust the Ward Government. The facts, even as admitted by himself, are quite sufficient to damn him politically aud to injure beyond his power to repair the cause which he professes to have at heart. The public does not take kindly to such hair splitting as Mr Robertson indulged m m his endeavour to excuse his breach oi faith ; but prefers—if preference can be given to acts so opposed to political morality the brazen effrontery behind the course pursued by his Labour colleague, the member for Grey Lynn. Politics iu New Zealand have sunk so low that we can almost believe that the undertaking given by the Prime Minister of the country will be treated iu the same manner as were the pledges of Messrs Payne aud Robertson.”

CONDEMNED BY AUCKLAND WORKERS.

“REGRETTABLE OCCURRENCE.”

Auckland, February 29

The Auckland branch of the Labour party has unanimously passed a resolution congratulating Mr Veitch on his political honesty and integrity, and while not committing itself to the wisdom or otherwise of the pledges, condemning the action of two so called Labour politicians, Messrs Payne and Robertson, in breaking faith with their constituents, The meeting was of the opinion ■that the two refened to should hand in their resignations. The resolution also stated that the Labour party was in no way connected with the regrettable occurrence.