Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JULY 8. 1907. SECOND EDITION EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8858, 8 July 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JULY 8. 1907. SECOND EDITION EDITORIAL NOTES

IT is regrettable that the Farmers Union rejected the sensible motion to the effect that it should become an active political force, [knowing no party, but determined to give its platform legislative effect. It will certainly accomplish little to secure reform until it has a direct influence | on politics, and shows every farmer | that the interests of the primary pro- j ducors are far more important than | those of any set of professional poli-1 ticiana. But, of course, it takes a \ deal to' arouse farmers to a souse of | the importance of true politics a- •

distinguished from party strife. Bo j long as the farmers are getting good j prices for their produce they care | little iiow much of the product is j being seized by others, or how many more x >arasi ’ tes begin -to exist on their industry. When the farmers are aroused, however, they will persist till their object is gained, and possibly ere long something may occur to give the .That the Farmers’ Union will have to become a fighting political force is very clear to those who realise the trend of legislation, and if they do not fight with legitimate political weapons they may have to use sterner methods for defouefe. They might well take a lesson from i ce, labour unions, who after years of organisation and attempting to secure objects by means of protests or demands, have discovered .that if they desire success they -must take united and active part in politics. Indeed, at almost the same time as the, Farmers’ Union rejected the proposal to take part in politics, Mr John Rigg, a labour union loader, was addressing an audience in the following terms—“ Our whole life was dominated by political action, and unless unionists were prepared to take part in the politics of the day they,'in effect, confessed themselves unfit for the franchise.' ’ The statement of the labour [leader is true, and on the policy framed by the Farmers’ Union all fanners should be united, and each one should dp hjs utmost to secure the return of those members only who pledge themselves to give effect to that policy, and turn out any Ministry which operates against it.

WE regret to notice that Sir Joseph Ward is following a practice which .docs not conduce to true representative government. Government by caucus is not government by tho representatives of the people in Parliament assembled. It is an American practice, which is almost as objectionable as the Tammany system, and may be as injurious in its effects. The business of the people should ■not be .conducted in secret convention, and every member of Parliament should bo free to listen to and be influenced by the arguments of other members. When a caucus arranges a course of action it practically compels all members of the party to submit to the dictation of ,the chief, not to think for themselves, and all the benefits of representative government are lost. We observe that at Wednesday’s caucus of the Ministerial party a resolutionexpressing loyalty to the ■“ Government” was passed. Of course, nobody suspected Ministerial supporters of being rebels, as they would be if tiiey were disloyal to Hie Go.vornri.ent, and what they really meant was that tiiey wore loyal to the Ministry—to .that which gave them political birth, or keeps them politically alive. But tho representatives of the people were not elected to Parliament to be merely loyal to a party, but to bo loyal to the people. And the whole business of parliament should be conducted openly, not in secret caucus. The reports of business said to be done at these .objectionable .conclaves may be correct, but there is no check on their reporters, who may bo interested in giving incorrect versions of the proceedings, and the real course of action decided on may be inimical to the interests of the people.

THE British mercantile mind finds it difficult to approve tho action of Australian politicians who have seized a mail tender deposit of £33,000, (.The Shipping Gazette, according to cable advices, even goes so far as to say that it will be an object lesson to those who have dealings with the colonies—that “those who in future interest themselves in the carriage of mails and produce will be advantaged by widened knowledge of the methods and eccentricities of Antipodean statesmen. ’ ’ The Gazette evidently does not know that such action is considered rather “smart” in Australia. It is possibly a survival of tho sentiment of the old days of bushranging feats, or of earlier days in Australian history—an inherited tendency. As to ‘ 1 tho methods of Antipodean statesmen, ” they know only one method, though it has Protean forms. The real but unspoken motto is “-Seize.all you can when you can, and how you can. ” The method is eccentric only as varying from that adopted by the nations who study honesty, honour, and justice. It is not feccentrio to tho ordinary politician, who would he regarded as eccentric by many if be diverged from tho usual policy.