MR MASSEY AT HAMILTON.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9087, 4 March 1908, Page 5

MR MASSEY AT HAMILTON.

REPLY TO THE PREMIER. Per Press Association. Hamilton, March S. Mr Massey addressed a crowded audience here to-night in reply to the policy speech delivered by the Premier at Auckland recentlv. He had studied the speech carefully, and could find very* little of policy in it. He quoted the Lyttelton Times in support of his contention that the only policy he could find was the cabbage garden sort, which ho supposed was intended to make , people healthier and happier. Sir Joseph Ward said he was neither a Conservative nor a Revolutionary Socialist, but the speaker did not know what he meant. There was a great difference; be tween State aid to individual enterprise and energy, and State competition. He challenged his audience to say they were in favour of nationalising . laud and industry, and yet say they were not Revolutionary Socialists. He wanted to know where Sir Joseph Ward stood. If he was not a Socialist, why had the Government introduced the Land Bill of 1906, which was socialistic in every line. If tho Government wore not socialistic, would it not afford an opportunity ci* acquiring the freehold? Tnis was a straight-forward question which. should he answered in a straightforward way. Sir Joseph Ward was strongly of opinion that our youth should be afforded an opportunity of learning trades; so was he, but he knew Sir J. G. Ward was a member of a Government that had placed difficulties in the way. If Sir Joseph Ward were desirous of removing those difficulties ho pledged himself to assist. The amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had proved somewhat like the Land Bill; the Government had run away from it. Were they sincere in their desire to place it on the Statute Book? Careful study of the Parliamentary list led him to the conclusion that a great majority of the members, Upper House included, would accept Socialism to-morrow. What were the electors going to do was the question to be asked at the general elections. If the Government had a policy worthy of tho name, other than that of expediency and splitting the difference, for goodness sake let them trot it out, and let tho electors express an opinion. Ho would not say tho country wag bankrupt or galloping to a deficit, but ho maintained our financial methods'were not all tney should be. Two practical men from outside the colon} 7 should investigate and then report. He was willing to admit hat since the back-down on the Land Bill there was not the former difference between the Government and the Opposition, but there was this difference, that between a party who had acted upon principle and that which acted solely on expediency. There were still important differences upon the laud question. The Opposition were anxious to prevent it wherever possible. The fact of Mr Fowlds being a single-taxer would make him an Oppositionist. The Government had shown by their actions that they sympathised with socialistic theories. His party were opposed to it. There were many other points of difference ; more than were usually found between ins and outs. The Opposition were honestly desirous of promoting the welfare of the country and the happiness of the people.