The Hokitik Guardian SATURDAY, NOV. 5th, 1921. THE WEEK.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 November 1921, Page 2

The Hokitik Guardian SATURDAY, NOV. sth, 1921. THE WEEK.

'P.ue ways of tlio Reform organ in Christchurch, like thorn* of the Heathen (fliinee. are [leoiilia.r. living compelled to admit that the Government lias aHe wed the finances of tj.ie cuinti'y to drift iuto a. very unfortunate position, it looks around for someone, ether than its own party proteges, to blneto and falls eagerly upon Sir Joseph Ward, ■who i« aivay from the country and a sale and- luiudy scapegoat. “As lor tlio JdbnralH,” it says, discussing toe attit*d« of tlio various wings of the Opposition towards tlio Government's retrenchment proposals, ‘‘tlieir position will not be a very e:*>v olfts. hut as they were jointly responsible with the Ministerialists for the great increase in expenditure, they cannot decently oppose any reasonable measures that may he taken to effect the large savings which several years of drift have made very necessary. Tn sense.

indeed. I heir ivsptiiixibiliiy is go-atei than is involved in their ac'iuie-eenv in tlie increased cost nt the depart meats, for it was their own former leader who is chiefly are,mutable fun the conditions which have enused the de-puriiiH-iitifl expeiidit nr,, to rise so greatly. It will la- tin- GovernmentV fault if a serimi'. effort is not mad" to bring down the expenditure Init it ioulv partly the Governmentfault that the expenditure is so high”. Thou, growing in audacity as it goes ahvj**, the Christchurch “Press'’ manages to make it i»|ipear that Sir Joseph Ward is responsible for nil the waste and cxtravtigancc ol its party proteges. “The expenditure for the year 1915-10,” it declares, “was a commitment before Sir Joseph Ward joi'iod the Government, and for that year the departmental expenditure was £7,709.952. The commitments for 191920 were, as he himself, explained, arranged under his control of the lreasur.v, and the departmental expenditure in that year was £12.392,163. Four years of his rontrol of the I reasury. whicll meant ncglocA to Keep the expenditure in hand. resulted ill a rise of 55 per cent.” This indeed is a juggling with figures Hurt might put to shalwe even the Heathen ( hinee himself.

begin with. Sir Joseph Ward joined the National Government as Minister of Finance in August 1915 and left it iri September 1010. It fell to lib lot to gather up the tangled threads of Reform tinatiee and to set its muddled accounts in order. Seven months of the financial year 1915-10 remained unexpiml when he took office, and it was his strong hand restored to the Treasury that stayed the drift of departmental expenditure and reduced the amount, compared with the expenditure of tile previous year, by £71.1)7 I a trifle it is true, buf a great achievement considering all the ciiciinistiinees. In 1910-17 the increase was only £103.403 and in 1917-18 only £-488.062. considerabU siinis, of course, but even the latter less than the increase ruder the Reform Administration in the year before the war. In 1918-19 departmental expenditure li'atd begun to mount, up as the inevitable result of the prolonged conflict in Europe, aggravated by the influenza epidemic here and in that year it reached £1,003,271. Hut in 1919-20. the first complete year of pence, it iuniped up to £2,933,111. The “Dress" would have its readers believe that Sir Joseph Ward was to blame for this, and to give colour to its invention says the Liberal Leader arranged the “commitments” for that year, taking as its authority Sir Joseph’s chivalrous statement in the House that he bad prepared the estimates before be retired from the ( abiuet. Six months of administration, including three months immediately before the general election remain'd to the Reformers, and it is scarcely necessary to say at which end of the period the huge iscrease in the departmental expenditure took place. But even if Sir Joseph Ward, by any manipulating of dates and ligurus could he held responsible for the increase of £2,938111 in 1919-20, still would ho no escape for Air Massey and his colleagues for the increase of £3,411,111 ill HK2O-21, the second year of peace. And yet the “Press’’ with the most astounding effrontery tells its leaders that Sir Joseph Ward “is chiellv account able for the conditions which have caused the departmental expenditure to rise so greatly” ! This is the sort of malicious nonsense with which the Reform newspapers are fev-

orishly striving to hold up their tottering idols to the worship of their gullible readers.

I'ntii. w,. know iiioro than vve do at present about the oath, of all ‘gmnee which the Hon. (’. .1. Pair, the Minister of Education is seeking to impose upon the members of the t.nehJtag profession we i-annot oiler any do finite opinion as to wluit is likely to be the result of this attempt to r ako New Zealand even more loyal and patriots than it is already by Act of Parliament. We do feel, however, (hat Mr Parr is ill grave danger of Hiking himself aiul ii,is colleagues look siupiOniclv ridiculous by tacking on to the Kducatioai Act Amendment Hill a clause implying that there is a large element of disloyalty in the eon ptry, and that it can he rooted out only by compelling the members of one of tile loyalist sections of tli,, eoinni'initv to protest on oath their devotion to the Crown and Constitution.

As we 'lll’ll the other ilay. H i' "il l' place to no 0110 in the elementary virtue of loyalty. We want the whole world to know that we are proud of our unfettered Constitution, of which the Monarchy is the coping stone, and that We hold in the highest respect and regard our Sovereign. We have no patience with people whose loyalty is less than this. Isut when .we have the Prime Minister telling us that the King not only reigns, Ivut actually rules, sonujt,inie.s piirsiiading his responsible advisers from their deliherate judgment, and the Minister of Kdneation legislating to compel the school teachers of the Dominion either to acquiesce in this form of government or to vacate their positions, we begin to think that something has gone sadly wrong with the traditions of our .ace It is on stuff of this sort that agita-

tors, of the less desirable order, and disloyalists fatten and glorify themselves in the eyes of tfee careless and unthinking crowd.

The beginning of the trouble '.be Prime Minister and his colleagues are inviting, is to be found in tlVe iehisal of little groups of school children hero and there, doubtless at the instigation of their 'parents, to salute the Flag. The Minister of Education, we understand from the reports sent to us from Wellington, has consulted the CrOWfi Law officers in regard to this deplorable development and has been advised that tlie Boards of Education would be justified in excluding tlcsc unfortunate children from the schools. But, surely, these children of all children | in the Dominion are the ones standing | most in need of tho education the

schools are intended to impart, l.oyj nlty is not a class subject io be taught I liv an austere school-master with !i ■ cane in one hand and n copy of Air j Parr’s appendage to the Education Act in the other. Tt Ts the growth of knowledge, of an understanding of the rights and privileges of citizenship and of a love of freedom and justice. Tt can he inculcated, no more than any other virtue can, by Act of Parliament.