The Dominion. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1912. DEATH-BED PROMISES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1367, 19 February 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1912. DEATH-BED PROMISES.

Some of tho Ministerial journals arc frank enough to admit that the Speech placed in the mouth of his Excellency the Governor by his Advisers at the opening of Parliamentis not the sort of Speech that the occasion called for. The mass of crude and ill-digested proposals outlined or merely mentioned in it, it is pointed out, are at the moment quite superfluous and out of place, the only issue upon which Parliament was called together being whether or not the Wabd Administration, judged on its past actions and the policy it presented to the people at the general elections, was returned with a majority at the polls.' This, of course, is obviously the only sound view of the position. The Government submitted itself and its policy for trial, and the vote of the people has been cast against it. It is quite possible that had the Government gone to the polls with tho platform now outlined in his Excellency's address it would have suffered an even more serious reverse than' that which actually befell it, for it must be plain to everyone that the proposals put forward, taken as io whole, arc even more extravagant than the amazing budget collection with which, in a last desperate effort, the Ministry sought to bribe the in December. This being the case, it is not surprising that even staunch Ministerialist journals look askance at the procedure of the Government, and no doubt if they gave full vent to their feelings would condemn in no measured terms this degradation of Liberalism by resort to tactics which indicate so plainly the weakness and cowardice of the party in power. Both the Auckland Star and the Lijtldlon Times, out-and-out supporters of the' WaM) Government, go so far as to remind the party in their issues of_ Saturday last that the question with which Parliament and the country are concerned is nor, I lie death-bed promises of the Ministry, hut the judgment passed by the country on the past actions of the Ministry. That is the only point 4'hich Parliament lias been summoned to settle, and members will do well to bear iu mind that it was the very class of trickery which lies bcrtinrl this latest action' of tho Government that njßistrrl tn fiwnkrm Ihn i public's distrust n£ the Wakd Admin-

istration and contributed largely to its downfall. The people are heartily sick of such methods, and there cannot be the .slightest doubt that if the Ward Ministry went to the country to-day its conduct since the elections would weigh heavily against it, and its tleath-licd promises and professions would merely go to swell the sum of its iniquities. It is somewhat strange in this respect that the Government has not realised that no plainer confession of its own failure could have been made than is contained in its wild endeavour to now place before the country something which it vainly hopee will placate the people for its past shortcomings. There is one aspect of the position which has provoked a good deal of comment, and which cannot fail to occasion very general regret. The fact cannot be ignored that the Speech put into his Excellency's mouth by his Advisers at the opening of Parliament had no real bearing on the question which members had been summoned to decide. The only purpose for which Parliament war, summoned was, as .has been shown, to finally decide whether, as the result of the elections, the Ward Ministry still retained a majority. The Ministry, therefore, by the course taken, sought to make the King's representative a vehicle for vote-catching. The local Ministerial journal—the official organ of the Ministry—makes this clear enough bv its comments on bis Excellency's Speech. We are sure the public, particularly in view of the special circumstances of the moment, will resent the fact of the King's renresentative bein.fr made the mouthpiece for such a catchpenny manifesto.