The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY, 16, 1910. A STRANGE INCONSISTENCY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 818, 16 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY, 16, 1910. A STRANGE INCONSISTENCY.

One of the striking features of the drift of politics in this country is the absence of fixed political principles—the easy unconcern with whrch Ministers change their views on vital issues of policy. "Expediency" is the governing "principle." A Minister to-day lays down an important principle respecting land settlement —the Government, to use an expression common to the present party in power, "nails its colours to the mast" on that principle. Presumably it believes the policy it thus pledges itself to the best policy to pursue in tho interests of the country. But should tho opponents of the policy prove strong enough to threaten the safety of the Government the flag is promptly hauled down and the policy so essential to the well-being of the country is abandoned. Plainly put our political leaders consider their own interests, before the interests of the country. We are, of course, .assuming that they are perfectly honest when they first announce their adherence to the particular policy to which they first pledge themselves. This constant chopping and changing of political principles has been pointed out often enough, especially in connection with the Government's somersaults on the land question. In that case it was perfectly obvious to everyone that Ministers knew quite well how completely they- were stultifying themselves in the eyes of the country— the situation was too obvious for any chance of misunderstanding the reasons which influenced the back-down of the Government. But there are cases in which the Government departs from the "principles" which it lays down apparently without knowing that it is doing so. This is the outcome of another pernicious feature of our public life. It is due to the wretched hand-to-mouth policy so much in evidence, the result of perpetual endeavour to woo sectional popularity regardless of the ultimate cost to the community as a whole. Instead of the Government acting OT firm and carefully-thought-out principles, it too often acts on impulse and in ignorance of or indifferent to its inconsistencies.

A recent illustration of this was afforded by the Piume Minister in his Winton speech, when he 4 made some observations upon the necessity for anti-Trust, legislation. The paragraph in which these observations occur has caused no remark in this country, but it would be read with profound astonishment by any educated visitor from abroad who had given any attention to New Zealand's experimental legislation. The ossential portion of it reads as follows:

"There should bo complete freedom between people of all classes in the country to deal with whom they like. As it is at present, this is not the caso; and what is an undoubted evil should bo made impossible for any company or person, however strong financially they may bo, to compel traders, and indirectly the community, to deal with them, and them only. Freedom of trade means competition, and competition is not only the life of trade, but is essential for the welfare of our people."

Our readers will not require to be told that we agree most, heartily with every word in this quotation. Sounder sense in as small room is rarely met with anywhere. But that Sir Joseph Ward should proclaim such opinions is truly amazing. If there is ono thing more than another for which his Government is noted, it is for its zeal in actually carrying out a policy of restriction upon freedom of trade. Nowhere probably has there been such a limitation of the "complete freedom between people of all classes in tho country to deal with whom they like" as has been given effect in New Zealand. It is only a few db,ys, indeed, since the Attorney-General, who realised more clearly than his chief that some sort of relation should subsist between his expressed opinion and his Government's enactments, declared that competition is a thing to be eliminated, and that it is tho policy of his party to eliminate it. And, finally, the author of the excellent sentiments upon "freedom of trade" quoted above has for twenty years been intimately associated with'the building up of a protective tariff and the denial of the principle of free exchange in industry! .

The aroh-priest of State Socialism and Protection ' upholding the merits of free exchange is as surprising a spectacle as would be the appearance of Me. Asquith as an ardent exponent of tho principles of tariff reform. But it excites little attention here, and being in this case the proper thing to do the inconsistency is quite overlooked. ■ There ' could, however, bo no more illuminating commentary upon the Government's failure to recognise any basic principles to which to refer its legislative proposals. We hear from time to time of "tlie principles of the Liberal party" in this country, but never hear them denned excepting in

thoso terms of universal platitude, which can be used with as much force and relevance by tho Socialist as by the anti-Socialist, by tho Free-trader as by the Protectionist—in a word, by either party to any political dispute whatsoever. Tho truth is that the "Liberal" party of to-day docs not fetter itself with principles. Perhaps it will bo urged that the Government does uoli trouble about

"theory," that it is a practical Government that tackles each situation as it arises. But even if one could concede any rhyme or reason to that hand-to-mouth conception of the art of government, one might ask that even the master empiricist must submit with the theorist to the fact that a general principle cannot be ttuo and not true at the same time. In other words, if Sir. Joseph 'Ward, thinking of a particular political proposal, commits himself to the sound opinion that competition and freedom of trade aro essential to the public welfare, he cannot expect to be applauded -when he defends a policy the very essence of- which is the destruction of competition and the placing of restrictions upon free exchange. As we pointed out a few days ago the case against a robber Trust is identical in its leading lines with the case against State Socialism. The evil of the robber Trust is tho destruction of free competition; the case for State Socialism, as Dit. Findlay himself admitted in his recent lecture, depends upon the doctrine, that competition is a thing to be eliminated. A State monopoly has nearly all the evils of a private monopoly, and it has vices peculiar to itself. It is typical of our Government's want of policy and incapacity for handling principles that the Prime Minister can. oppose Trusts in the interests of competition and free exchange and at the same time uphold and extend a policy subversive of those interests.