POLITICS AND REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 793, 16 April 1910, Page 3

POLITICS AND REFORM.

Sir, —Naturally I am-relieved to find your correspondent "Looker On" is magnanimous enough to forgive me for imputed e(fences of which I am not guilty. So far from attempting any justification of my supposed delinquincies, however, I am contcnt to lot the correspondence speaJr for itself,, convinced that the good sense of your readers will discriminate between your correspondent and myself. On the present occasion I do not propose to do more than refer, with your permission, to ono or two of the points. "Looker On" now seeks to most unjustifiably score at the expense of Mr. Massey and tho Opposition. But, before doing so, I would like to suggest (using your correspondent's own very elegant little metaphor) that it is better to "suffer with the itch to say something" in defence of _ one's principles and friends, than it is to be afflicted, as "Looker On" undoubtedly is, with the desire to paralyse any and every effort jiut forth to end the reign of misrule, with which your correspondent professes to be so profoundly disgusted, and to inoidently belittle the reputation and work of one of his political associates. Even were I guilty of resorting to the "mangled quotation" business, and of thus voicing "half truths" (a charge I . most emphatically repudiate), your ; correspondent should be'tne.last to complain if be suffers from misrepresentation, and that for this reason. On the face ofjt, his letter carries unmistake-j able evidence that he must be well acquainted with tho facts he most wilfully ■ and perversely misrepresents in regard to the attitude of Mr. Massey and the Opposition on more than one question To take a case in point; After oiting my opinion, attributing "the rout of 1905 to the fact that the electors and tho, Government most unfairly- identified/ Mr. Massey and his followers with the monstrously unwise tactics of the new Liberal party," "Looker On" says: No doubt the, motives of the Op- 1 position were' pure, and we, may assume that they merely were anxious to elicit the truth. . But all'the public knew was that, with ■ quite . unnecessary heat, they supported the new Liberals all through tho voucher case, and voted with them right through. Now, sir, that statement. is, as you are probably aware, untrue, and I think I shall have no' difficulty in showing, on the authority of Hansard, that it is so. -There were only three divisions upon the voucher business. In the most important of the three, that in which an amendment was , moved by Mr. Buchanan, to include in tho order of reference to the Controller and AuditorGeneral "all payments. during" tho whole period, of Captain Seddon's employment in the Public Service, the Opposition, as a body, voted with the New Liberals, and, I believe I am right in saying. that •' it was. the gentleman whom your correspondent untruthfully says was "invited to leave the party" who was responsible for the amendment' (vide Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 133, 1905, p. 166), and who, consequently, to a certain extent misled his colleagues. But—and here there can be no disputing tho fact—on the crucial division of the 7th Septomber, 1905, when the then Premier (Mr. Soddon) invited tho House to vote for his 'motion expressing satisfaction at the complete refutation of tho chargc against Captain Soddon, of improperly receiving payment for reorganising Defence stores, and" against Messrs. Hey wood, Collins, Grey, and M'Beth, of giving untrue certificates relating thereto, Mr. Massey. and other members of the Opposition voted with the "ayes" in favour of Mr. Seddon's • motion, the "noes" being. Messrs.- Bedford *nd Laurenson (New ; , Liberals), Mr. Moss (ah '■Independent), and the tellers, Messrs. - Fisher and Taylor (New Liberals). There were three pairs recorded, two Opposition members, and one Independent, thus showing their dissent from the motion, the full text of which, with the division list,' is -recorded in the Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 134, 1905, pp. 547-8. Tho motion was of a very sweeping character, expressing regret at 1 the v reiteration, of the charge against Captain Seddo'n "after it had proved to - be unfounded," and expressing "pleasure at the receipt of tho report of the Controller and Auditor-General," and congratulating the Premier, aa Minister for Defence, upon tho fact that the chargo mado' by the member for Wellington had been "proved to be unfounded in substance and 'fact," and further congratulated the Departmental officers and Captain Seddon upon having "successfully vindicated, their reputation as officials," etc.

"Looker On," whose identity stands sufficiently revealed by subsequent misleading comments upon this voucher business, cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that Mr. Massoy voted for that motion, and that only two Opposition members voted against it, by pairing' with Government members. Yet he asks your readers to believe; the Opposition "supported the new Liberals all through the voucher case, and voted with them right through!" Need Igo further; to demonstrate the absolute unreliability of the-case urged by this exponent of the virtues of "Cobbler'a wax" against Mr. Massey and the Op; position? ■_. r"' In conclusion, sir, "may I venture the opinion that you will bear me out when I say.that the attitude of the Opposition ■ upon this; voucher business was absolutely, correct,. and that the party was in no Way associated with the new Liberals in the. campaign of calumny, which was so dexterouslv and disastrously used against the Opposition by Mr. Seddon and his followers at the general election of 1905?— I am, etc., , ; OPPOSITIONIST. Auckland, April 12; 1910. [There are very few people to-day acquainted with the voucher episode who do not recognise that the Opposition were unjustly blamed in connection with it]