The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1911. "SPOILS TO THE VICTORS."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1158, 20 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1911. "SPOILS TO THE VICTORS."

The great difficulty in the way of the Ministerialist party's unceasing endeavour to persuade the public that the Government docs not carry out a policy of "spoils to the victors" is tiic simple but insuiti-ciently-remembered fact that nearly everybody knows of one or more obscure cases, apart from the large and notorious cases, of the working of that policy. In some measure, of course, patronage is hardly separable from party politics; it is part of the price that must be paid for the party system, which is rather inevitable than, as Mr. Balfour seems to have urged in the most interesting speech cabled to us to-day, actually valuable. This unfortunate fact was discussed by the Spectator last month, apropos of the development of the "spoils to the victors" policy in England to an extent that is shocking to all sincere and independent Englishmen of all parties, but that would seem extremely mild to a New Zealander habituated to the results of twenty years of an uninterrupted "Liberal" oligarchy. The Spectator contrasts the wholesome Gladstonian policy of preventing the multiplication of officials with the anxiety of Gladstone's degenerate successors to multiply Government berths as a means of extending Ministerial patronage: "To-day the leaders of the Liberal Party, so far as can be judged from their public action, welcome the creation of new State functions because it provides opportunities for rewarding political supporters, or in some cases for getting rid of embarrassing political rivals." There is one notable appointment, of the latter sort in the records of the New Zealand Government's performances, and a trade union leader recalled the other day the frequency with which the Government has used its power of appointment to reduce Labour agitators to silence. In this latter respect its example has been followed by the British Government, for, as the Spectator says:

Thoso behind the scencs are ready to describe how tho opposition of Labour in particular constituencies has been not rid of by tho gift of berths in the Government service. This device has a double advantage, for it enables tho wire-pullers of tho Liberal party to gain applause by pretending that appointments are given on democratic principles while at tho same time the party is obtaining valuable political consideration in return. The immediate text of the Specta-\ tor's article was the furious clamour of the Eadical press against the Lord Chancellor's failure to appoint only Liberals to the unpaid magistracy, and the contemporaneous impropriety of a certain appointment to a well-paid post in the National Debt Office. The clamour against Lord Loreburn was due, of course, to the rage of Liberal "workers" against what they felt was the nonpayment of their political services: "An enthusiastic Liberal who knows nothing of tho law, who has never had any experience of judicial functions, and who has very little leisure in which to discharge them, will persuado himself that ho is morally entitled to become a magistrate; and if the coveted honour is withheld, ho may even go so far as to forsake tho convictions of a lifetime and the political creed of his ancestors and to carry his support into tho other camp. Members of Parliament know that in practice their success at the polls depends not upon winning tho reasoned support of the mass of electors, but on securing the active support of a number of "workers." . . . Knowing this, tho Member of Parliament feels that at all costs ho must secure tho goodwill of his "workers." and if some of them are set upon obtaining J.P.-ships he must do his best to gratify t'heir desire. In New Zealand, where one-seventh of the population, according to Mr. Millar, are dependent upon the State, one of the objccts of the "Liberal" M.P. is to obtain "Government billets" for his constituents. Who docs not remember the innumerable pathetic stories of our M.P.'s about the multitude of applications for "Government billets" they receive 1 Tho Spectator charges both parties with an improper use of the power of patronage, but it specially attacks the Liberals because they, "though habitually parading their superior virtue"—as our "Liberal" party parades its Mr. Fovlds— "have carricd the scandal to a far greater length than has been reached for several generations." It points out the viciousness of the system in much the same terms as we have constantly used, and used with infinitely greater justification: It corrupts our political system I,'y making I lie success of Parliamentary candidates depend, not upon the convictions of tho electors, but upon (he privalo iutorcsls of the "workers." It degrades the Civil Service by introducing into that important body men whose qualification is lint efficicncy for tho work they have tj do, but activity m political .canvassers,

Britain is, as yet, happily free from that far more terrible evil, the political system that makes the success of Parliamentary candidates largely dependent, not upon the merits of the candidates or the honest conviction of the electors, but upon tho subserviency of tho candidates to the Ministry that has millions of borrowed money every year to distribute, at its own sweet will, amongst the electorates in railways, roads, bridges, post offices, and other public works.

The only remedy the Spectator can see is the creation of "a vigilant public opinion": "If it were once understood that tho electors dislike jobbery, and would visit its promoters' with pains and penalties, Ministers would be infinitely more careful than now to avoid scandals in the matter of patronage." The only remedy for what is in New Zealand the worst form of patronage is the establishment of non-political control of the public works expenditure. Remove the disposal of the borrowed money from the Government of the day, and you will obtain much more than the elimination of waste and extravagance: you will liberate the conscience of the elector (who will gain nothing by voting— as, for what he thinks prudential reasons, he often votes at present— for a Government he hates or distrusts) and tho conscience of the M.P. (who will have nothing to gain by pandering to local greed). As to patronage in the matter of Government appointments, it is perfectly obvious that honesty and decency can be obtained only by the establishment of a Civil Service Board, which would make the M.P. and the Government indifferent to the wire-puller. Everybody knows that the Government opposes the establishment of such a Board out of its dread of losing its power of patronage, just as the Australian States maintain such Boards out of their knowledge, through experience, of the evils of political patronage. The Reform party is pledged to the establishment of such a Board, which is bound to come in no time, but which can only comc quickly— and tho need of it is urgent—by the further strengthening of the Reform party in Parliament.