WHOSE THE BLAME?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8353, 13 February 1913, Page 6

WHOSE THE BLAME?

In the last election campaign, the leading apostles of what they call Reform decided to take Hamlet’s advice to his corrupt mother to * ‘assume a virtue, if you have it not.” With simulated virtuous horror, they went from platform to platform denouncing the “reckless waste and jobbery” of the Liberals, and wildly called upon the electors to “Look at the Public Debt!” (which, by the way, they are now increasing). When confronted with the argument, or the plain fact, that ho and his colleagues had voted for every loau and asked for more, Mr Massey said that was so. but the responsibility was upon the Government of the day. This, of course, was a very lame retort, an obvious shuffle. Wo merely mention it now as an illustration of how circumstances alter cases. Now that “Reform” is in office, and has got itself into serious trouble through a phase of its precious scheme for the establishment of “security of tenure,” the squatters’ organ rushes to the rescue by attempting to lift the load of responsibility from tbo Ministry and divide it between the one hundred and seventeen members of Parliament. After a very weak defence of the Government’s position in regard to the now famous Southland coal-land leases, Mr Massey’s official apologist says: “If the Act does give to the Southland lessee the minerals in his lease (which is denied by the Prime Minister and the Crown Law Office), the blame, if blame were to be distributed, would be shared by every member of both Houses,” This is not only in direct opposition to the present Prime Minister’s conception of apportioning responsibility, as expressed just over a year ago, but, unfortunately for the squatters’ newspaper, it is contrary to fact. Wo have already shown that Mr Hanan foresaw' exactly what has happened and explicitly warned the Government. An excerpt from “Hansard” to this effect has been quoted more than once quite recently in these columns. Now we propose to show what led up to that warning. We shall provo that the Prime Minister was not only determined to close his eyes to the import and substance of what Mr Hanan had to , say, but that ho actually endeavoured to stifle the discussion. Mr Hanan was proceeding to read a letter in which the correspondent said (we quote from “Hansard”-. .... “It is an iniquitous proposal to give all the Crown tenants the freehold at tho original value plus The Hon. Mr Massey: Is this in order, Mr Speaker ? Mr Speaker: No; the honourable gentleman is not in order. Mr Hanan; The writer points out that there are in certain leases clauses reserving to the Crown tho right to all minerals and oils, excepting gold and silver, on such lands, with the right of ingress and egress over the land for the purpose of working same. The Hon. Mr Massey: The horn curable gentleman is challenging your ruling, sir. Mr Speaker; The honourable gen. tleman must not proceed further. Mr Hanan then said be would effect his object in another way, and proceeded to show how under the Massey Land Act there would arise just the circumstances that have arisen, to the discomfiture of the Government and tho uneasiness of the public, over tho Southland leases. Thus it is plain as a pikestaff that if the Government had listened to reason it / would not have floundered into its present _ difficulty, and, what is infinitely more important, the public interest would hayo been safeguarded. Now, we may ask, whose is the responsibility? Whoso the blame? Should the Liberal members share it ?