WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 3 August 1925, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

A GRAVE ALLEGATION. LIBERAL’S RETORT.

(Special to '‘Guardi'ji”.) WELLINGTON. July 30. As was generally anticipated, “fusion” between tlie Reformers and the Liberals and the negotiations towards Unit end have Loen subjects <d Iret, ttt-n L mention during the l'’in!incial Do hate now going on in the House of Representatives. This was inevitable. But few people can have expected that t!a; discussion oi these delicate subjects would have taken on the deplorable tone it now has assumed. The trouble began during the week-end at Palmerston North where the Prime .Minister, addressing it large gathering of his personal ami political I fiends, referring to the recent conversations between representatives ot the two older parties in the House, is reported to have said that the Liberals were simple out lor the loaves and fishes of office and that their desire to amalgamate on a national basis was only skm deep. With this statement being spread abroad without any contradiction front the .Minister, it was quite natural and proper for Mr I. lx. Sidey, the member for Dunedin South, in opening the debate in the House on Tuesday night, to protest strongly against what seemed to him a most

outrageous misrepresentation ol the attitude of the Liberal Party. Ihe statement appeared all the more unworthy, Mr Sidey thought, from the fact that Mr Wilford at the very outlet of the negotiations had declared that in no circumstances whatever would he accept office in any reconstructed Ministry they might bring about. A challenge. Sir .James Parr, who iollowed Mr Sidey. referred to fusion in a lightei vein than Mr Will'ord’s lieutenant had. done, predicting that the present Prime Minister would return alter the approaching genera! election at the head of a large majority pledged to give the country what it needed above all other, things. ‘•Whether the honourable gentlemen opposite liked it or not,” he declared, "the Prime Minister will then lie loading a Nationalist Panv in this House.” But later on in the debate when Mr \ oiteli was drawing a somewhat odious comparison between what he called the chivalrous hearing of the leader of the Opposition and the unworthy suggestion of the Prime Minister. Sir dames interjected with the query "Did the leader of the Opposition stipulate for three portfolios!'” ”1 do not know what the leader of the Opposition said.” .Mr Veitch replied, “hut I am certain he never made any such stipulation.” ”1 am sure of it.” Sir .lames retorted. Mr Willord was absent, from the. House on account of illness and again was unable last night to take his seat; Imt Mr (!. W. Forbes, the member for llurunui, gave a most emphatic denial to the .Minister's statement. The Liberal Party, Mr Forbes said, had made no claims to portfolios and had given the Prime Minister an absolutely free hand. Mr Coates: That is contrary to fact. Mr Forbes: I defy the Prime Minister to say that any member of our party approached him. Mr Coates: 1 would not carry that 100 far. Mr Forbes repealed hts assertion. The Prime Minister: I would stun if I were you.

Mr Forbes: The Prime Minister knows for a fa cl that he was given an absolutely free hand. NO THOI'OMT TO LOAVES AND FISHES. That is where the matter stood when the House met this afternoon—an extremely unsatisfactory position which could not he solved to the sat HLirtioii of both parties —ami ns the mail closes there G not a great deal to do to the story at lir.-l hand. That I lie Liberals are perleellv satisfied with their own part in the negotiations may he judged not onlv from their lonlident hearing in the House, lint nGo from their readi/iess 'to di.-leuQ.s in the lobbies every detail of such progress us was made to the desired goal. Mr Willord. still is a sick man. with a doctor's orders to take a prolonged rest, hut half an I,our before taking his seal this afternoon he said the only possible explanation of the delusion under which the Prime .Minister appeared to he laboring was I hat he could not distinguish between the wild stories that were Hying about the country and the facts that were plainly recorded and available to evervone. An over-work-

ed man easily might become confused in that way. But. however, this might be. there was not the slightest shred of truth in the. assertion that the Liberals had stipulated for three or any other number of portfolios in the reconstructed Ministry. In fact they had left the .selection of his Cabinet entirely to the Prime Minister and at no stage in the proceedings had given ;i thought to the “loaves and IGhes.”

THE OTHER SIDE. What the Prime Minister will have to say on the subject during the present sitting of the House remains to he seen ; hut. the emphasis with which he (ontradieted Mr Forbes’s statement last night suggests that he must have something to reveal which has not yet appeared in the printed reports. Tt is known that the committee of four from each side which discussed the preliminary negotiations did have ihe question of portfolios nude" consideration. The number of Ministers from one! i side was mentioned, eight-four and seven-live being among the ratios suggested. But when the Liberal representatives returned to their caucus it was explained to them tliaL the distribution of portfolios was not being taken into account. That, it was agreed unanimously, v,as a mailer lor the Prime .Minister's determination alone, and the Liberal representatives foiim’.'inieated this decision to the committee. All this is confirmed by Hie exchange of letters between the Prime .Minister and the leader of He Opposition and a recital of the facts does not throw much light on the enigma created bv Mr Coates's exchange of retorts with the member for llurunui. An interesting stage of the session surely has been reached, li is impossible io think that the Prime Minister has no ground at all for his reiterated contention.