NOTES OP THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1483, 4 July 1912, Page 4

NOTES OP THE DAY.

It is really enjoyable to hear the Mackenzie Ministry talking about tho wickedness of pledge-breaking. When Messrs. Payne and Robertson got into Parliament by solemnly pledging themselves to their constituents to rote tho Ward Government out, everybody realised that they badly ; broke actual and sacred pledges. _ Now the Mackenzie people are seeking to represent that if anybody who is not a member of the Reform party votes against the present Government ho will have broken a solemn and vital pledge. It is a pity that they do not give some evidence to support this view. What pledge did a.nyone give his constituents to support Mr. Mackenzie? There were no full pledges even at the caucus. What are the facts? The caucus opened with some sort of understanding that the party should stick together, and with a definite decision, in the shape of a formal resolution! that the new Government to be formed would carry out the programme of the Governor's Speech of February. What happened? Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues over and over again repudiated their undertaking to the caucus to adopt the Speech programme. Much space could be filled with textual proof of their breaches of faith with the caucus. Obviously, they are the last people in the world who should speak of keeping faith. There is a saying about Satan reproving sin."- But it is not oven sin that Satan is reproving. That the caucus of "the members of the party and their allies" never considered itself to have been pledging itself to any Government that might be selected, or even to any leader that might bo selected, is a simple fact." The proof, is in the fact that Mr. Isitt and some other "bolters" in the caucus refused to pledge themselves to accept unreservedly any leader who might lie chosen. They plainly intimated that they made some menial reservations. Is it not a fact that subsequent to . tho so-called understanding they declared that under no circumstances would they support Mr. Millar? They _ were in a minority; the. majority rtl llial. limn apYi.-iviiit-ly v&e in favour of Mr, Millar,

How can it bo said that anyone' was bound by any pledge in face of this 1 Of course it is quite natural that the Ministry should endeavour to make it appear that the understanding arrived at when the caucus opened was binding on everyone present under all circumstances; but seeing that the conditions attached to the understanding were broken practically from the outset by a number_ of members and later on a distinct pledge' was broken by the Ministry itself, it is difficult to perceive how the. Government can hope to cast any blame on those who now refuse to be dragged at_ the heels of a pledge-breaking Ministry.

After a session far more exciting than the rival show at Chicago, the Democrats have chosen Mr. Woodrow Wilson as their candidate. The intrigues at tho Baltimore Convention are hard to follow, but tho choice of Mn. Wilson is good. He will havo an entirely solid backing by his party at the polls, wliicn is more than can bo said for Mr. Taft ; who will certainly suffer from the influence that his bitter enemy, the ex-President, clearly exercises over a_ considerable section of the Republican voters. With the selection of the Republican and Democratic candidates speculation has usually been narrowed down to a consideration of the actual state of the_national opinion—as to whether it is predominantly Republican or Democratic. This year there is reason to believe that the Democrats are capable of carrying the Electoral College. Tho selection of Mr. Wilson means that Mb. Roosevelt has utterly failed to bring off his alliance with a section of the Democrats, for the Governor of Now Jersoy has had for his backing the strongest anti-RooSEVELT influences. The New York Post, for example, an Independent Democratic journal, has been the most important backer of Mn._ Wilson, and it has at the same time always had a good word for Mr. Taft and nothing but reprobation for Mr. Roosevelt. The ex-President, therefore, if he goes on with his fight, will bo unable to rely upon any Democratic support worth mentioning. The most he can do is to split tho Republican vote. It_ is exceedingly likely, that the solidity of the,, Democratic vote will placo Me. Wilson in the Presidential Chair in November.

The Hon. G. W. Russell's references to land tenure in his speech on Tuesday night were singularly ! unhappy. An agrarian issue is one that opportunists cannot, normally, succeed upon; and it is the misfortune of the Mackenzie Ministry that while the tenure issue is of tli6 first importance, tho Ministry is hopelessly divided upon it. Nobody has the faintest notion what are Mi:. Russell's secret convictions, or what are the secret convictions of' any member of the Ministry, upon the question of tenure; so we need not pry into them. One can only judge from their known words and deeds. There is a majority of strong leaseholders in the Cabinet, which is led by a declared freeholder-of the most downright sort. So Mn. Russell could think of nothing better to say than Ministers were neither land- . nationalises nor single-taxcrs. This was / his cardinal argument. His footnotes to it were very curious. They were not "anxious,'' ho said, "to destroy the freehold tenure." Yet he urged the destruction of the existing freehold rights of somo landowners. Ho also said that no member of tho Government was "prepared to amend tho present land laws to make it any more difficult for settlors to acquire the freehold of lands acquired for closer settlement." Since the settlers pointed to cannot at all acquire the freehold under the existing law. nobody could increase their inability to acquire it. Such are the wriggles and shifts of the Government. What heightens the humour of tho Ministry's refusal to admit the freehold principle is the fact, that this very Mr. Russell not ( long ago acquired a vast tract of land himself, and that every member of the Ministry owns land of his own. What; is good enough for a Radical Minister, apparently, is too good for an ordinary farmer.

Some of the members of the Mackenzie Ministry are bad losers. Me. Laurenson, fo> instance, last evening treated tho House to an exhibition of ill-temper and ill-taste which, while it may have given some relief to his over-taxed feelings, was hardly calculated to elevate him in the eyes of tho country or strengthen his position with his fellow members. This Minister should t strive to realise that whatever his natural instincts may be his office as a Minister of the Crown demands from him some semblance of dignity, and possibly a little self-restraint. So far as his quarrel with The Dominion is concerned Mr. Laurenson is quite welcome to exhaust his extensive vocabulary of abusive epi-. thets in denouncing it, if it affords" him any pleasure to do so. It would perhaps be going too far to say that we regard liis abuse as a compliment, for it is a matter of indifference to us, but we certainly prefer his abuse to his approval. It is the best evidence he could possibly give that lie realises the effectiveness of tho advocacy of the paper of the necessity for a clean and straightforward administration, guided by definite principles. But as wo said before Mr. Laurenson is a_ bad. loser and unfortunately _ for himself bis method of showing it is to take advantage of the privilege and protection which Parliament affords him to shower personal abuse on his -critics. And yot he professes to object to shooting from behind a hedge.

A device often employed by the "Spoils" political leaders in recent years has been an appeal to the House, or tho country, to "rise superior to party." ''Let us," this sort of politician will say, "settle this great land question (or taxation question, or education question, or any other question) without party bickering." But wo never heard of anything odder than Mr. A. M. Myers's appeal last week for the placing of finance in the non-party sanctuary. Our "Liberal" politicians do not, we know, road very much, but it is odd that they should show themselves never to have read the speeches or letters of one of the greatest financiers that true British Liberalism ever possessed. To Mb. Gladstone finance was the most vital thing of all, as the engines arc the most important part of the steamer. We have -often quoted from his innumerable speeches, letters and minutes, his views upon the incomparable importance of tho Exchequer and upon the sublime virtue of unsleeping economy. Whenever lie was presented with some now scheme, liis. first question always was, "What will it cost 1 ?" and liis' • scronrl, "How nliall it bo financed!" Readers cf. JHuh.l.ey'e

great Life know how finance and policy were always intermingled in Gladstone's career, and how, again and again, questions of general policy were treated and wore fought by Gladstone, and by the other leaders of his time, as questions primarily of finance. Readers of Burke know that that great man was prouder of nothing more than his handling of finance, and Burke's every breath was drawn, every movement made, in party air, and he would not have wished it otherwise. To speak of "making finance a non-party question" is like proposing that men should cease to split into mutually critical parties on any question whatever; for financo is the blood of every policy. Of course, we are not forgetful that to the "Spoils" politician "finance" simply cannot meau anything but borrowing. Mn. Myers's appeal, therefore, was an appeal that all criticism of borrowing should end, and with it all criticism of the policies and the administration that lead to a frantic piling-up of the national debt. The Government cannot afford to be criticised. Its appeal for a "nonparty" treatment of finance reminds us of the burglar, whose guilt having been proved, appealed to the Judge, who was about to pass' sentence, to "settle this here thing between us like reasonable men. You being Judge and me being prisoner only embitters things."