The Press. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1913 A NOTABLE OMISSION.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14839, 3 December 1913, Page 8

The Press. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1913 A NOTABLE OMISSION.

It would not surprise us if the thorough-going "Liberals," on reading to-day the reports of the speeches delivered fay Dr. Thacker and Mr J. BLaurenson last night, vrere to decide that Dr. Thacker is the man for their money. For through the rich confusion of his speech even the dullest eyo can discern a determination as ininvincible as it is unintelligible to vote against the Government with all the heartiness of which he is capaoJe. But there does not appear to be anything like the same enthusiasm about Mr Laurenson. who, indeed, seemed to feel as much embarrassed by his position a-s the Opposition's official candidate as all who know him are puzzled by it. Wβ are bound to say that with many of his opinions we are in entire agreement; those with which we do not agree are those- of which nobody suspected Mm, and which he does not, indeed, appear to hold vory securely. But what most peoplo desired to know was the overwhelming consideration which has brought him forward to express on his own behalf the conviction that an end must be made of the Government which has been protecting the rights of the public in the present industrial crisis. Why, to put it more briefly, does Mr Laurenson oppose the Government, and oppose it at this particular time? This is what the people desire to know, but Mr Laurenson does not appear to have realised that it is what he ought to toll the people. His speech was in no way an indictment of the Government, in. no way a justification of the Opposition. In respect of every question with which he dealt, the Reform Government is as Liberal as he is himself. Indeed, so far as practical politics are concerned, thero is only one point of real importance on which Mr Massey is likely to differ from him, and Mr Massey in so differing, will have logic on his side. We refer to the land question. Mr Laurenson is a freeholder on principle, yet he opposes the further alienation of Crown lands! It is not necessary to traverse his speech in detail, for, as we have said, in all those particulars in which he must be taken seriously he is at one with tihe Reform Party. We look in vain for any real issue which gives Mr Laurenson a genuine reason for opposing the Government, and we arc forced to conclude that his only reason, for ranging himself against the Reform candidate, and against the Government which it ia the supreme wish of the Federation of Labour to overthrow, is the singular one that he was invited to stand by the "Liberal" wire-pullers. Of course, he is entitled to join any Party he pleases, but the electors are equally entitled to know his reasons for joining that party. That he is a Liberal is no reason why he should support the hopelessly discredited faction which is going to disappear as a party at the next general election. Still less is it a reason why he should by his candidature proclaim his conviction that the Government should be defeated, and that tho Federation of Labour should be able to say that the country has declared against the Ministry which has secured peace, comfort, and safety to the community, and freedom for the despatch, of the community's commercial business. If we had to choose bbtween Mr Laurenson and Mr McCombS, we should certainly prefer Mr Laurenson, but it is not a choice that any friend of good government and public order would care to have forced upon him, and, fortunately, there is a Iteform candidate whose position is unequivocal, and who offers the constituency the means of registering its approval of the Government's management of affairs ever since it took office, and especially during the strike. Mr Laurenson must see for himself that his speech contains no indication as to his reason for opposing the Government, and that he will occupy a false position if ho fails to give the puzzled electors this reason. Tho omission is a very striking onej and we should bo glad to see it ropaired.