WELLINGTON NOTES.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1919, Page 4

WELLINGTON NOTES.

(Our Special Correspondent). LIBERALS AND REFORMERS

THF DIVIDING LINES

Wellington, October 15

The “ Evening Post” still is trying to persuade the leaders of the two old parties there is no difference between their policies, and by way of facilitating their reconciliation., and the restoration of the National Cabinet it is telling Mr Massey his. election manifesto is no better than. Sir Joseph Ward’s, 'except ( that it is briefer and just a little less, prodigal in,,.its promises. The “Post "in. these days is essentially an apostle of compromise. It -vyisbies to live in harmony with all political creeds and .to be saved,from any association with party controversies. Bat its appeal for peace is in vain. The 'Liberals, and the Reformers are definitely and irretrievably apart and whatever may be the result of the general election they will not fie drawn, into the old arrangement. What will-remain, however, as a very happy heritage from the “coalition ” will be lessened personal asperity, more party tolerance and broader understandings. Of these there already is abundant evidence.

A POINT OP CLEAVAGE. One point of cleavage between the parties was brought into strong relief daring the debate in the House on the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Amendment Bill. Sir Joseph Ward led off by expressing in generous jfferms his concurrence with the proposals of the Government I for extending additional benefits to the soldiers under its laud settleriient scheme, but later on the question of compulsory acquisition was raised aud the differ-; ence between the Liberals and the; Reformers, or, at anyrate,, between*, the stalwarts among the Liberals aud; the leader of the Reformers, at once j becairie .apparent. Mr Isitt, Mr* Hanan, Mr Wilford, Mr Ell and MrMcCallum all insisted that without' compulsion much excellent land; which ought to be available for soldier; settlement would remain in. the hands of wealthy monopolists. Mr Wilford referred particularly to the rich lands in . the Hawke’s Bay district from which the small man was absolutely excluded.

THE PRIME MINISTER’S VIEW. Mr Massey, while not saying in so many words he was opposed to compulsory acquisition, made it quite clear he had no liking for the process and no intention of employing it unless all other means failed. Compulsion, he said might involve some hardship and in any ease was enormously expensive. His own experience was that there was no difficulty in obtaining land for soldiers. Values were high, but when the Government offered cash purchases were usually effected at reasonable prices. He mentioned a number of estates that bad been acquired below their market value, particularly instancing the Gladbrooke and Teviot properties in Otago and purchases from Messrs Bidwell, Ricldiford, M’Hardy and Armstrong. He thought the Land Department had done .very well in providing for soldier settlement and saw no necessity so far for the adoption of more drastic methods of acquisition. OTHER DIVISIONS. Both Reformers and Liberals realise that the lines of demarcation between them are very much better defined than the “ Post ” would have the public believe. Were it not so, there would be no occasion for them to criticise the mauifestos of their rival leaders as they are doing. The Reformers are declaring that Sir Joseph Ward is out to buy votes at any price, that he would commit the country to an expenditure of twenty or thirty millions upon visionary schemes and that his return to office would mean a huge addition to the annual burden of taxation. The Liberals are describing Mr Massey’s promises as more specious and more elusive than Sir Joseph Ward’s and likely to be twenty times more costly if they were ever carried iuto effect. How the two views are to be reconciled and their holders brought again into the same camp is beyond the comprehension of the man in the street.