The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1913. WHAT THE “ADVEN" MEANS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8346, 5 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1913. WHAT THE “ADVEN" MEANS

Last wok, in the fullness of its heart, that inspiring element in the political constitution of this country which styles itself “Reform” decided to rejoice. The scene of the festival was Hastings, and the special excuse for jubilation the fact that the Hawke’s Bay constituency chooses to be represented in Parliament by Mr H. M. Campbell, a large landowner. Mr Campbell was, in fact, elevated for the nonce on to the pedestal of something in the nature of heroism. And very appropriately, too. For did not Air Campbell at the last election capture the seat from those dreadful and dreaded Liberals, wbo bad so long blocked the pathway of “ Reform ’ ’ to the coveted goal of office ? Does he not stand for ‘‘ purity of administration,” for tho public examination of vouchers, for tho “square deal”? Will he not assist to settle the landless people of New Zealand on the “ waste spaces” of the King Country and the swamp lands of Hokitika, in this way aiding Mr Alassey, the high priest of the close settlement faction, to make every man his own landlord and sit him down under his own vine and fig-tree? Nobody who appreciates the true aspirations of ‘ ‘ Reform ’ ’ can doubt for a moment the sense of proportion and fitness that selected tins typical squatter as tho central figure at tho feast. If any lingering doubts remain, let us remind those who harbour them that in his election campaign Mr Campbell supported his desire for close settlement by generously offering to soli some of his surplus freeholds and leaseholds to the State. Could more be expected, even of a “ Reform ” patriot? Another circumstance emphasising the correct taste of tho managers of the Hastings banquet is that Sir William Russell was one of the honoured guosts_ at tho social board and one of tho chief contributors of those illuminating speeches that succeeded the disappearance of turkey and pate do foie gras. Sir William, indeed, was the veteran of the party—an ex-leader in those terrible days when the Ballances, McKenzies, Seddons, and Wards began to conjure the constituents with widened franchise, old ago pensions, freer education, access to land, labour legislation, and all tho other accompaniments of the Seven Devils of Socialism. Sir William fought most valiantly against the _ mad onrush of democratic sentiment, with all its unsettling effects on the national mind and character, its menace to Capital, its paralysis of our credit on tho London money market. Ho stood four square to all tho Liberal winds that blew, until he was first deposed from the leadership in favour of Mr Alassey and then quietly pushed aside by an ungrateful constituency.. Sir William Russell was, in relation to that notable gathering of “Reformers” last week, tho political father of them all. Yet no. Ho never led “Reform.” The party had not in his days discovered its new title. Sir William was, and is, a Conservative. That, as a matter of fact, was one of his proudest boasts in days of old, before the party had taken np with such fads as the “graduated land tax” or begun to coquette with such obvionsfy undesirable offsprings of Socialism as the Old Ago Pensions Act. Perhaps Sir William Russell felt the change last' week. Perhaps that is why ho seems to have found it'necessary to formally adopt "Reform” and explain what it signifies. Here it is in a nutshell. The advent of “Reform,” according to Sir William, means that “tho finances of the country will no longer bo a mystery and a puzzle.” Well, now, isn’t that just fine? All tho difficulties that have obfuscated _ tho olector and the taxpayer’ in the wicked past are to bo swept away in one act with tho clean broom of the new Augean stablemen. The intricacies of tho Dominion’s large and complex financial arrangements are to be forthwith abolished, and every fourth standard schoolboy shall have a practical working acquaintance with Parliamentary papers B 1 and Q 5 and all the rest of the Chinese_ puzzles by means of which the iniqnitonh Liberal Ministers of Finance, aided and abetted by a shameless Audit Department, have so long scattered dust into the eyes of the deluded community. This is an immense concession, for which every man and woman in the country must be devoutly thankful. Tho “advent of Reform” is already operating in the direction promised. for did not the rainbow politician, Mr Fisher, only the other day invite all the West Coasters to come to Wellington and examine every voucher? And who knows the hidden dangers of concealed vouchers .better than Wellington Central’s picturesque political acrobat? True patriots will regret to find tho Napier “Dailv Telegraph” so unresponsive as to ask Sir William Russell for a wider definition of what the “advent of Reform” really means. Does he desire to indicate (asks our contemporary) that wo are to have merely improved bookkeeping, or has the suggestion as to “mystery and puzzle” a “deeper meaning”? If tho latter, “then it is proper that that meaning should bo stated in clear and unmistakable language.” Now, there is a nice way to look a gift horse in the mouth! Here we fire promised a new era of perfect frankness and straightforwardness in regard to public finance, the complete abolition of “mystery and puzzle,” and tho “Reform” is met by a newspaper asking a lot of inconvenient questions as to whether Sir William Russell’s utterances suggest anything in tho nature of “hocus-pocus” or “sticky fingers,” and if not why not, and all that sort of thing. The “Telegraph” appears to display ingratitude for tho “advent of Reform.” Its _ pressure for the supply of detailed information suggests a rather inadequate appreciation of tho true character of “Reform.”