MR TURNER AND THE LABOR PARTY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3809, 21 April 1913, Page 6

MR TURNER AND THE LABOR PARTY.

" S' ; S', CTo the Editor.) _ Sir, —In connection with the above matter, the stating of a. few facts, in reply to Mr Turner’s letter, will not be out of place. Mr Turner at the outset refers to the Labor Party’s meeting being packed two years ago on the occasion, of Mr A. H. Anderson’s selection by the Party, and he states that when he protested against the alleged packing he was howled down and therefore left the room in disgust. Tli real reason was that Mr Turner, who opposed Mr Anderson’s candidature, was so handsomely beaten by Mr Anderson on every issue that he raised, that every man of the 130 that were present was .glad to see him leave the room. I might say he left to attend the Typographical Union’s smoko concert, which evidently was of more importance to him than municipal matters, especially as he had no chance of coming into the limelight. Mr Turner refers further, to the apathy shown by the party on the occasion of his contesting the election against Mr Hepburn. That, I might state, was not a Labor election. The Party had not decided to take part therein, but Mr Turner came on deck and announced himself as the Labor candidate. There was no selection made, and the members of the Party were the most surprised men in Gisborne when Mr J. C. E. Turner announced himself. This only serves to prove that this estimable gentleman’s anxiety to get on the Council takes first place and Labor interests must play a secondary part. Mr Turner complains when over 130 members assembled to select a candidate ; he complains when only 20 or 30 assembled for the same purpose. In fact, if he can’t find anything to grumbler at to-day, he will growl about something that he thinks is going to happen to-morrow. But, if there is apathy in the Labor movement, who is responsible for it? Persons like Mr Turner, who will not attend meetings and do their share of the work. He joined the Party about two years ago, and was selected to stand for the Harbor Board. He was badly defeated. He then dropped for some time into oblivion. The election of the Licensing Committee then cropped up. Mr Turner comes on deck again, but the Party rejected him. He does the disappearing trick again, until Mr Barton resigned _ from the Council. Up he comes again and declared himself as the Labor candidate, without the party’s approval. He was beaten again. Where was Mr Turner after this? At the Party’s meetings? Not there, not there my child! But on the present occasion up lie pops again, and having secured nomination, thought he was justified in again resting on his oars. He again showed so little enthusiasm in the fight that, acting under instructions from the Party, I wrote to him and informed him that it was necessary he should attend the meetings and familiarise himself with the platform and municipal matters in general, as he didn’t appear to be too well equipped in that direction. In short, he was told to “get on or get tout.” Mr Turner resented this, hence his withdrawal. You see, Sir, if a member won’t do his share of work in the party, there is a~- poor chance, indeed, of him doing his share of work as a Councillor. On all bodies, whatever their name or object, workers are wanted —not shirkers. Now, if Mr Turner was so dissatisfies - with the Party’s methods two years ago, why did he remain a member and endeavor 12 months ago to creep into Hie position of Councillor on the Party’s back. And, if the Party was so apathetic 12 months ago, why did he seek nomination on this occasion ? Why, if he wanted to withdraw long-ago, did he not do it in a proper way—in a way that a man of grit would have taken, instead of putting forward a weak miserable excuse? Why, if the Party lacked power did he state at Bishop Cleary’s Bible-in-Schools meeting in Whinray’s Hall, that he had the honor of being associated with a Party that stood for a secular education ? The answer is simple. He wanted to use the Party to get on the Council. He should explain why he moved a vote of thanks to the Bishop. A Labor renegade is a most contemptible person in the eyes of the Party, and its members, realising this, decided to strike Mr. Turner’s name off its register immediately he withdrew his name from its list of candidates. I can understand men having differences of opinion, but disloyalty is the one thing that no man, whatever. his station in life, should tolerate. Mr Turner thought he was doing the Labor movement a favor by contesting seat under its auspices, instead of which the Party was sure it was honoring Mr Turner. In conclusion I might state that our platform was submitted to every Union in Gisborne for approval, with the request that five candidates should be nominated. This was done, so you see that both our policy and candidates have been endorsed by the representatives of over 1000 workers, to sav nothing of the large body of citizens that have expressed approval thereof. I think this will be sufficient to exonerate the Labor movement from any charges of underhand work that have been made.—l am, etc., GILL INGLIS, Secretary Gisborne Electoral Branch, United Labor Party.