NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1281, 9 November 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Prime Minister seems to think that the public will let him have his political cake and eat it too. At Balclutha on Monday he said this: Some peoplo had been straining their intellects to make out that the Government was as old as Methuselah. lie was not responsible tor anv former Government, ho was responsible for the Government of which ho was tho head, and that was a Government that was now five years old.

And yet he and his friends fly into a. passion whenever the Reform party declare that they are responsible only for themselves and not for any party that existed last century. There is a second side of the matter. Although he refuses, when it suits, to shoulder tho responsibility of the Seddon Government, insisting that you must not turn back more than five years, he and his friends are rending the air with appeals for support on the strength of what Ballance and Seddon achieved. But the public cannot be fooled by such a schoolboy trick.

That kind of "independence" which our evening contemporary has discovered leads naturally to results both sad and strange. Although it has stated that the Government is wholly contemptible, and must bo removed from office, and that every honest and sincere supporter of it is only "a cog in the party machine,,' "a tool of the administrative clique," it is hopeful that Mr. Fletcher, a loyal Government man, will be elected for Wellington Central. Its excuse is that Mb. Fletcher is a "leaseholder." And now it wants Mr. Field to bo elected for Otaki—Mb. Fielp, who is so perfectly faithful a cog in the party machine that he apologised abjectly to the Fkime Minister for voting as he had pledged himself to vote on one occasion. Our contemporary's excuse this time, we must suppose, is that Mr. Field is a freeholder.

Even Sir James Carroll, shrewdest and most subtle of politicians, is unable to face the facts about the Government's land "policy." Here is an extract from the report of his Levin speech:— Referring to the land question, the Minister asked what was the Opposition policy?/ A voice: ".freehold." The Minister: "That's no policy. It's merely a desire to get what is somebody else's." This may explain the whole of the trouble of the Government. The freehold is "no policy"; the denial of the freehold is also, therefore, "no policy." When the only "policy" is to refuse to have any policy. Therefore the Government has a firm land "policy." But why do we trouble to demonstrate such a simple fact? The Government has fifty different land policies. Its trouble is that it does not know which to announce. Unless they are very careful, some of our "Liberal" friends will find themselves in trouble with the libel law, like their Radical brothers in Great Britain. At Kaiapoi on Monday Mn. Moore, , the Reform party's candidate, flea it very effectively with administrative abuses, and cited, amongst other examples, the spending of public money on certain private property in Southland. As reported in the Government organ Mr. Moore said: "It had been found that public works were being carried on in Sir Joseph Ward's own district to improve private property." This, of course, is simply a fact, and it illustrates tho rottenness of the present system of public works expenditure. Nobody has ever suggested that the Prime Minister knew anything personally about this act of maladministration, or would have countenanced it if ho had known about it. He would not have been so foolish. But that merely emphasises the necessity for a changed system. Onlv Sir Joseph Ward amongst members could know anything about Awarua votes, , and ho obviously docs act know; so that

the House as a whole knew nothing about the expenditure. It passed it in ignorance as it lias passed many votes. The Christchurch organ of the Government, however, made (.his astounding reference to M it. ]\1 ooitK:

Ho converted n rumour that was put in I'iiTiiliil'inn by Iho "orginiisers" of his party koiiig limn ago lo the effect that 'Sir Joseph Ward had licen personally licii'.lilctl by din expenditure of publicjiicjiiey in liU own district inlo a bald nssi'riiflii (hat llm Trinio Minister liml niacin llm most flagrant niisiiso of his position am! nntlioritv "(o improve priv;ilh properly." Jf Mr. Moore did rwt know , thai. Sir Joseph hud shown this sl.'nr-y to lie utterly false in every parlio.ulnr ho iiiust tiavn <I«liber.iMr closed his ryes nnil ears 1.0 the truth. Tho I'rirno. Minister probably will refer to this i.'lioK-o piece of scandal when he sneaks at U'inlon to-night, mid then, at least, «e slinll cxjiocl Mr. Moore to make an ample apology to tho man ho has m> grossly maligned. Mn. Moonrc maligned nobody. He stated only a fact, and his remarks were distorted, as shown above, for tlie purpose of attempting to rlaniage his candidature. Many "Liberal" newspapers in Great Britain have had to pay heavily for far milder libels upon Opposition candidates than this slander upon Mn. Mooiui.