POLITICAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1078, 5 December 1911, Page 2

POLITICAL.

There was an attendance of between 300 and 400 at the Coronation Hall last night, when Messrs John Robertson, Labour candidate for the Otaki seat, and R. R. Marlin, Organiser for the Reform Party, delivered addresses. His Worship the Mayor presided and introduced the speakers.

MR ROBERTSON

who spoke first, said the present address would make the 53rd that he had delivered during the present campaign. He inteuded to deal with the questions submitted to him, in common with every other Parliamentary candidate, by the Executive of the Farmers’ Union. He had notified the Secretary of the Farmers’ Union that he would reply to the questions from the platform. He adopted this course in order that he might fully explain his views and make his position perfectly clear. The questions submitted by the Farmers’ Union were as follows : (i) That Crown tenants have the option of purchasing the freehold of their leases at the original value provided that iu the case of the L.I.P. tenants the addition of one per cent, capitalised, if he has only paid four per cent, rent ; and in the case of the renewable leases at the capital value of the lime of the purchase, less the lessees’s interest in the lease to be decided by arbitration, the optional tenure in the disposal of Crown lands to be continued. (2) That only ratepayers he empowered to vote on local government matters in counties, road boards and rural districts. (3) That there should be no increase of taxation by way of penal land tax placed upon the farming community. (3a) That no further protection duty be imposed on the farming community. (4) That the construction of public works should be by contract to be let by tender. (5) That legislation of a penal or socialistic character tending to monopolise to the State the means of production, distribution and exchange shall be strenuously lesisted. In regard to the first question, he was opposed to it, as he believed first, that such a proposal, if carried out, would be detrimental to the farmers themselves. He wished to make it clear that although his nomination was directly due to one organisation of workers, he held that all classes ot workers were on the same footing, and it would be impossible to pass legislation detrimental to one section without ultimately injuring the others. The farmers were workers, and if this first proposal ol the Farmers’ Union were put into operation it would not be in the interests of the farmers themselves, taken as workers. Suppose, for instance, said Mr Robertson, that a tenant is on land the original value of which was per acre, and that tenant were

offered the freehold at ,£ls per acre and the present value ,£45 to ,£s° P er acre > an d that tenant were offered the freehold at ,£ls per acre, he asked in what shape that tenant was going to reap any benefit as a farmer. At the present time he held a 999 years lease at a rental of about per cent, on the original value —about 13s per acre, Offer him the freehold at ,£ls per acre, and if he intends staying on the land, to take the freehold would mean that he would be sinking his capital tor 4<£ per cent. From that point of view he could not reap any benefit. But on the other hand he may wish to sell, and that would be where he would reap the benefit, and make a profit of about ,£3O per acre. The man he sold to, however, would be the farmer, and the seller-out the speculator. The new owner would have to find interest on £,’45, as against the other man’s £,'ls. Mr Massey made this proposal the first plank of his platlurm, and the official Opposition candidate lor this electorate had adopted it. Mr Massey, in dealing with the Mokau case, had stated that Hermann Lewis bought the land from the Maoris at 1 os 4d per acre and sold at a profit of ,£60,000, and this profit Mr Massey said had to be paid by the working settler on the land. The speaker agreed that Mr Massey was right, but if this proposal of Mr Massey’s were carried out it would be exactly the same as the Mokau, the man who would eventually have to pay would be the working settler on the land. If the land were sold it would mean a profit of ,£5,000,000 to the land speculator. lie submitted to the lanner that the question of importance to him was : is he receiving the values he creates and not being exploited. Then take the question horn a national point of view. It would mean alienating more laud Irom the State, and the statesman that will do that is giving away something he has no right to give. (Applause.) Mr Massey some time ago said that the great advantage of his proposal would be that the State would receive the cash for the laud, and this money could be used for the purchase of more lauds for settlement. The speaker said that during the last 21 years laud values in this Dominion had increased from 75 millions to 175 millions, and he contended that any policy that was going to be advantageous to the country as a whole was a policy providing that access to the land should be made easy, and further, all values created by the farmer should be his absolutely, and should not be taxed in any form, and the values created by the Stale should go to the public. The Labour Party’s land policy made provision for these. The freeholder contends that a man will not work so well if he has no security of tenure, but at the present time land values

were so high that the slightest , drop on the market of our produce : would mean that half of our j farmers would be bankrupt, and , their tenure would be gone, so it would be seen that the freehold system does not give security of tenure. Now, in r gard to question number two. The whole development of democratic government is adult suffrage, and adult suffrage was based on the conlcn- ; tion that every man and woman is contributing to the wealth of t liecountry and is a factor in Us pro- , sperity, and therefore have a right , to a say in its government. If j that applied to the government ot j the country it must also apply to i local governing matters. Mr Mas- . sey had stated that it was impossible | to put a tax on any section ol Unpeople, but that the workers ; would eventually have (o pay it. ■ Now if Mr Massey agrees to the j second question ol the Farmers j Union, he is supporting taxation j without representation -that Ihc . workers should pay taxes | without the right to a voice, as to ; how the money so derived should j be spent. Question number 3 ; He contended that the farmer was a worker, and as such hau always got to pay his share ot any tax. If it were possible to pul a tax on the rent without increasing that rent then it would be taxing the rent-receiver and not the tanner. He considered no penal land tax should be imposed on the working farmer. From the question numbered 3A it appeared that the Farmers Union was agreeable that further taxation should be placed on anyone else, so long as it was not placed on the farmer. He would like to point out that it was impossible to tax one section without taxing all sections. If the Customs Duties were increased it would mean that the farmers, along with everyone else, would have to pay I the extra taxation. Taxation j could not be considered Irom one , section only ol the community. The one thing they must ; guard against was that the natural I resources of the country should not j be allow -d n- a-wiue the property 1 of the speculator or monopolist. \ (Applause). In regard to the ques- j tion of the construction ot public j works by contract or day labour, it \ had been freely stated that the pie- j sent method was a wasteful method, and if less pick and shovel and j more up-to-date machinery were j used the work would cost | much less. But the present system was conducted with the idea of finding work for people who otherwise would be unemployed. Kveu if contract work did come a little cheaper it would mean that there would be a certain amount ol unemployment. Wherever the contract system of carrying out public works had been tried it had been condemned aud he did not believe that anything would be gained to the country by having the contract system introduced in connection with public works. As to the last question Mr Robertson expressed surprise that this should come from the Farmers’ Uuiou. 11 any class had gained iu the past by the socialistic legislation ot the Government, that class was the larming community. They had received State aid at every point. The Agricultural Department undertook experimental work lor them that the farmers in other countries had to do themselves. The Stale subsidised steamers to carry their produce. Would it be a benefit to the farmers to have privately owned railways (A voice: Yes it would). Well, replied the | speaker, look at America, and it you arc of opinion that the privately owned railways there are a benefit lo ibe l.iiuicis, then you have a veiy qneei 1 ica ot what is of benefit to tarmeis. Personally he did not think the fanners were consulted iu drawing up the questions, just atler the paper was drawn up the Canterbury fanueis asked the Government lo establish a depot in London tor handling their frozen meat, etc. I'hey asked that the whole ol the marketing at Horne should Ire in llie hands ol the Government. Now these sell same people say they j are prepared lo strenuously ; resist legislation ol a social- j istic character tending to mouopo- j Use to the Slate the means ol pro- | duction or distribution. Kefeiring i to the attitude of the Labour Party, ! Mr Robertson said that there sveie j two parties existing at the present j time which lo the great mass of , workers present no diffeience iu - policy'. Kveiyoiie knew ol a 1 Liberal, a Tory or a Labour Pally, | but be asked what did they know ot a Ward Paity or a Massey Parly. Theie was 110 principle, 1 as lar as policy was concerned, | separating these parlies. No one - could iirrd any definite measure ol , importance or advantage lo the j great mass of the people 011 which ; either ot these par Ires aie abso- ; lutely undivided. Recently iu ! Shannon Messrs Allen and Fisher, ! who belong to the same parly, Ue- 1 livered addresses, and their opin- ; ions were in a number of cases 1 directly opposed. A little later Mr Laureusou, a Government member replied to Mr Allen, and then Mr Field, also a supporter ol the Government, delivered au address iu Shanuou. Mr Robertson contended that ot the speeches delivered there was a great deal more difference iu the views of Messrs Laureusou aud Field than there was in those of Messrs Field and Massey. The supporters ol the present Government were asking to be elected on the past Acts of the Government aud the followers of the Opposition came along with the same old list the Hine charges and the Mokau ea-e, secret Courts, etc. It was just a case ol the man wauling the j -F criticising the man who had already got the job. (Applause). One parly asked lo be returned on

what they had done and the other wants to be returned on what they hadn't done. In coming before the electors as a Labour candidate, he did not want the electors lo /00k upon the election from an individual point ot view. It was a greater question, that of the workeis of this and other electorates standing together and saying; A plague on both your parties we will do the job ourselves. (Applause ). on; ST ions. In reply' to questions the candidate said he would support a motion of no confidence in the present Government. If he had any confidence in the Government, he would not be before them that night as a Labour candidate. He wished them to understand that he had no confidence in Massey either. Would vote for measures and not Party. Believed in what was known as the System of Recall, and he considered the electors should have more conrtol over their representatives than they had at present. Was opposed to granting State aid to denominational schools. Was opposed to the abolition of the tolalisator at the present time. Was not in favour of increasing the number of racing day's. The reason that his name did not appear in the Weekly Herald among the names of the Labour candidates was because the Weekly Herald was the official organ of the Trades Labour Council, and only the names of the candidates nominated by that body were published. The Union directly responsible for his nomination was affiliated to the N.Z. Federation of Labour, and there were some ten other candidates in the same position. Mr Hornblow, moved aud it was seconded by Mr G. Whibley, that Mr Robertson be accorded a very hearty vote ot thanks for his interesting address. As an amendment it was moved by Mr Hudson, and seconded fry Mr Griffin, that the candidate be accorded a vote of thanks and confidence.

The amendment on being put was carried.

The candidate briefly returned thanks, and moved a vote of thanks to the chair, which was carried by acclamation.

MR. MARTIN. At the conclusion of Mr Robertson’s address, Mr Marlin, the Reform Party’s organiser, took the platform, He said he desired to register his high appreciation of he courtesy of the gentleman who was standing in the interests of Labour, in allowing him to lake the platform at the conclusion of his address. He had kept away from the building during the time Mr Robertson was delivering his address, as he thought this was only a lair thing to do considering he was addressing the electors after Mr Robertson. He desired to congratulate the Labour Party on putting forward such a man as Mr Robertson. Mr Martin went on to give a short retrospect of politics tor the past twenty years. He said that when the present party came into power in 1891, the Hon. John Ballance was pledged to a non-borrowing, selfreliant policy. Upon Mr Ballance’s death in 1893, Mr cieddou took up the reins, and during bis thirteen years of office no one could deny that a great deal of democratic and liberal legislation had been passed, for the welfare of the community as a whole. Sir Joseph Ward took office in 1905, j and he has since made it clear that { he only holds himself responsible i lor the legislation passed since | then. That being so they must | refuse to give him any credit kn the good legislation passed by hi- ! predecessor. Now he desired lo ; ask if anyone could tell him the j policy of the Ward Administration. ; Mis opinion was that they desired ! lo remain in office at any cost and : that they would sacrifice any >■! 1 ihcir political opinions lo remain in power. Dealing with the Land Guestiou Mr Marlin said that in 1906, the then Minister of Lands, Mr K. McNab, brought forward a Land Bill that was going lo revolutionise the land policy of Ibis country. Lie ; claimed that he had nailed his j colours to the mast and that the ; Government would stand or fall i by the Bill. This Bill provided 1 that it) million acres of Crown ; Lands should be set aside as eu- | duwmeiits. Now eveiyone knew 1 01 the ignominious maimer in | [ which the Government had , climbed down over that Bill. lh 1 next year another Land Bill wae ' introduced — the ‘'Shandy-gaffs j : Bill, it provided that hall th’ 1 Crown Lauds sdould be set aside as endowments and the other hale disposed of under the optional* system : the L.LP. system should i he repealed and the renewable ! lease system substituted. That ' Bill, with certain modifications, j was passed and placed on the ! Statute Book. The next year, j 1908, was election year and cousej qneutly no Laud Bill was brought | down. At the 190 S elections Mr McNab lost his seat, and the feeling in the country was such that in all the country electorates between Wellington and New Plymouth, with one exception, the Government candidates were rejected at the poll. The one exception was the member for Otaki. This member had recently voted against the Government on the laud question, but unfortunately he bad since seen 1 tit to apologise lor having done | so . At the 190 S elections the Government got a majority 01 22 j and one would think _ that this majority would be sufficient to ' allow them lo pass any legislation . 1 Iwy d oared- They made an J attempt in 1919 lo pass another

Land Bill, providing that any class of Crown Lands could be purchased by the tenants at the original value, but they could not get the titles lor 105 years. In the meantime the Crown was to participate in any increase in value to the extent ot 10 per cent- on L-l.l’. bind, 20 per cent, on renewable leases, and 40 per cent, on land lor settlement laud. The Radical element in the House threatened to stonewall the Bill, and it was abandoned. In 1910 the Government brought forward a measure providing that every holder of a L. LB. Section should be entitled to the freehold at the original value plus Jo per cent on the difference between the original and present unimproved values, but if a man held or occupied more land than was allowed by the Act he was in the eyes of the law a criminal. Such, said Mr Martin, is our Liberal legislation of to-day. This year, beingelection year, consequently no Land Bill was brought down. Sir James Carroll, in July, then Acting-Prime Minister, had stated that LU) Luropeans owned in the aggregate 13 million acres. Now, asked Mr Martin, isn’t that an admission of incompetence tor a Prime Minister to make. What have they been doing whilst they have been in power? The Government must stand condemned on their own statements. (Applause). Mr Marlin next dealt with a statement made by Mr Byron Brown to the effect that one of the reasons for the Relorm Party “dropping” him was because he would not agree to the proposal to give lessees in perpetuity the Ireehold at the original value. This Mr Marlin said, was incorrect. The speaker went on to explain that the proposal in connection with giving the freehold at the original value was nothing more than should be done. It is recognised by the Growu that the improvement eflected by the tenants belong to the tenants and so long as this was admitted what else belonged to the Crown but the unimproved value. The speaker next dealt wit 1 the question oi finance and reierreu to the great increase of borrowing during Sir Joseph Ward's regime. Duiiug his term of office the cost of Government also had increased enormously. He said that taxation had increased by 40 per cent. During the term of the Continuous Ministry population had increased by 54 per cent., revenue by xls per cent, and expenditure by 167 per cent. The finances of the country had not been conducted in a satisfactory manner. Ol the whole of the Public Debt only 63 per cent, was reproductive and everyone had to be taxed to pay the interest on the remaining 37 per cent of the debt. The cost ol Government in 1906 was £7,120,000 aud in 1910 Mr Martin dealt at some length with the railway service aud drew comparisons with the New South Wales service in regard to freights aud lares.- He also read extracts of adverse criticism of the Government by members who supported it. He criticised the Government for red using to lurnish particulars in regard to loans. The speaker then went on to outline the Reform Party’s policy, which has previously been inserted in the columns of the Herai.d by Mr Moucklon, He considered that their policy was a truly progressive aud liberal one. In conclusion Mr Martin said in a very short time the electors would be called upon to choose their representative. If they were satisfied that the present administration was honestly working in the interests of the people then they Gll-aid support Mt Field. If ott Liu- u; her hand they thought they would be belter represented by a Labour car,didate then they would support Mr Robertson aud he told the electors that if they could not pul tii-’ official Reform candidate in nut to hesitate to send Mr K■ iljg; Usoii there. In choosing Lue.r representative they had to use great care and consideration, as they were electing a trustee and should vote lor 110 man unless he was ot high moral character. If they were satisfied with the policy ot the Reform Parly then he asked them to support the official candidate, Mr Moucktou. QUESTIONS. In reply to questions Mr Martin said that the 3;stbs or bare majority on the liquor question | was no plank in the Reform i Party’s platform and so long as a candidate subscribed to the policy he hud enunciated he could vote lon the other question as he i thought fit. The Reform Parly | proposed first ol all to settle the idle lands aud it then it was found more laud was required they would take o\er the large estates and throw them open for closer settlement. Asked in the event of Mr Brown getting into the second ballot with Mr Field, who would the Reform Party support, Mr Martin said they did not anticipate that Mr Brown would get into the second ballot. As he had previously stated bis Parly did not recognise Mr Brown in any way, aud he could not say that there would be any official recognition. He believed in choosing the lesser of two evils aud be led it to his hearers to decide which that was. The Civil Service Board advocated by his Party would be elected by the Civil Servants themselves, He favoured compulsory military training. It was moved that Mr Martin be accorded a vote of thanks for his address and that this meeting is of opinion that the time has come when a change of government is desirable. The motion was seconded and i carried.

On the motion of Mr Martin a hearty' vote of thanks to the chair was carried by acclamation.

Mr Byron Brown will address the electors in the Coronation Hall to-morrow (Wednesday) niglP.

Mr W. H. Field, the Liberal candidate, will address the electors in the Coronaton Hall this evening at 8 o’clock.