The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, October 5, 1911. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1052, 5 October 1911, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, October 5, 1911. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Dismay was the most noticeable expression on Cr. R. B. McKenzie’s countenance at the Manawatu County Council on Tuesday when the Foxton Harbour Board Doan Bill, to enable the Foxton wharf to be acquired from the Government had been dropped, owing to the opposition from Feilding. Cr. McKenzie pointed out that he had temporarily dropped his agitation for the BullsGreatford extension of the tramway so as not to embarrass the promoters of the Foxton wharf proposal, and now, when it was too late to move in the tram extension question this session, he found he was “left.”

In answer to Mr Newman at Palmerston on Monday evening, Mr Massey said he would not favour the repeal of the Land Settlement Act. The Opposition Party stood for closer settlement, believing that the whole prosperity of the country depended on it. The sum of half a million was raised lor purposes of subdivision, and last year only about ,£IBO,OOO of it was spent. He wanted to see every man farming his own property, paying rent neither to the State nor individuals. He was able to prove that he was the first man in Parliament to move for what was now the Advances to Workers Act. The Opposition would not be likely to repeal what they had helped to pass into law. With regard to Advances to Settlers, the Post Office Savings Bank should be made available to those ' 'iio wished to borrow money. ’.lorn tui.-. Department there was about fourteen millions cf money lent to the Government its If Depositors would be better .satisfied if they knew it was being lent to the men on the land. He had voted tor the first Old Age Pension Bill in 1897, but was op-; posed to the second measure because the late Mr Seddon admitted that in all probability he would have to curtail advances for roads and bridges— not borrowed money —ard "hit it might be necessary to reau.w some of the salaries. He should have been able to make better provision for the scheme before placing the Act on the Statute

Book. Mr Massey had no objection to the principle ot old age pensions, and there was no chance of the Act being repealed, though it might be improved ; in fact it was being improved each year. He was a supporter of old age pensions, and went so far as to suggest that women should be allowed to draw their pensions earlier than men—at 60 years, instead of at 65, the present age. He had supported the workers’ homes scheme, which was quite different from the advances to workers. It was on his motion that it was made possible for the occupant to acquire the freehold. Concerning limitation of area, he remembered that Mr Wasou, a former member for Selwyu, and an Oppositionist, had moved in favour of the principle. Mr Massey had also put a motion on the Order Paper supporting it, but the Government took care that he did not have an opportunity of moving it. He was in favour of reasonable limitation of area. Those who were most bitter in opposing the option of the freehold were small men who were the most desirous of taking advantage of an opportunity of securing the freehold —and in unlimited quantities—when it occurred. He supported the superannuation scheme; he believed that the State should make provision for its servants in their declining years. The cost of living was to be reduced by lessening taxation. People had little idea of how taxation had been piled up. Many imagined that a tax placed on others could not affect themselves, but no class of the community could be taxed without the others suffering ; it was simply passed on. He was not in favour of lowering the wages of State employees. The Reform Party believed in good times, good wages, and opportunities for all. Civil servants should be paid according to their ability and the work done. There was only one person who was not paid according to the responsibilities of his position, and that was the Reader of the Opposition himseli.

The Dominion, in yesterday’s issue, takes exception to the following paragraph which appeared in the N.Z. Times report of the Political Reform’s gathering at Palmerston on Monday night. “At the conclusion cheers were given for Mr Massey and the other speakers, and the response to a call from the body of the hall, three cheers were added for Sir Joseph Ward.” The Dominion then continues : This is incorrect, The cheers given for Mr Massey and his friends were a hearty and united demonstration by the audience of something like one thousand people assembled in the Opera House. The “ cheers ” for Sir Joseph Ward were so faint that they were not heard at all by any ot those present on the platform. Two Wellington reporters who attended the meeting had a similar experience. They heard nothing of cheers tor the Prime Minister. Docal reporters appear to have been equally oblivious. Yesterday Mr Guthrie wired to Mr J. A. Nash (Mayor of Palmerston) who presided at the meeting asking for his version of the incident. Mr Nash replied : ‘ Yes, someone back hall called out when Massey rose reply.’ It appears therefore that something in the nature of cheering for the Prime Minister was attempted, but to describe the response as 1 hearty ’ in comparison with the demonstration in favour of Mr Massey and his friends is grotesque. The response to the attempted counter-stroke was, in fact, so faint that it was all but drowned in the mild hubbub which, as is usual, arose from a meeting about to disperse.” We don’t know that three cheers either for Mr Massey or Sir Joseph Ward after the public meeting counts for much, and we would not have had anything to say on the subject but lor the fact that the writer happened to be in the hall at the time and distinctly heard the three cheers called for Sii Joseph Ward, which were just as lustily given as those for Mr Massey.