The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1929 CLEARING UP A MYSTERY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 758, 3 September 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1929 CLEARING UP A MYSTERY

'THE Reform Opposition in the House of Representatives appears * to he determined in its demand for a complete revelation of the mystery about the so-called London embargo on New Zealand loans. It has been reported that the question will not be left as a reproach upon the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, who undoubtedly has been thrust into an intolerable position by his sucessor as Treasurer, Sir Joseph Ward. There can be no doubt at all as to the necessity of clearing up the vague charges and half-statements against Mr. Stewart for his financial administration and preliminary negotiations about new loans just before the General Election and the subsequent defeat of the Reform Government.

Unfortunately, the mystery may not be revealed in the clearest light possible without imperilling the Government’s precarious hold on administrative power, and also rendering much worse than it has been for the past nine weeks the lamentable work of Parliament. Today the Prime Minister, who is in the unenviable position of a responsible statesman who either lias said too much or said too little about the mystery he alone has created, refuses to retract the little or too much he had to say on the subject. Moreover, Sir Joseph Ward, with an obduracy that has never before been characteristic of his able work and amiable temperament, has declared that even if Parliament forces an inquiry lie would “not he there.” This is a singular attitude that cannot be condoned either by his friends or by his political opponents. Some currency has been given to a strange rumour that the Reform Opposition intended to divide the House on a proposal to submit the “loan embargo mystery” to the Chief Justice, as arbiter, for elucidation and a special report to Parliament. Tlie rumour was so silly in itself that it is not surprising that it has been described by the Leader of the Opposition as being “just a kite”; and Mr. Coates might well have added that it was a wobbling kite. He himself had never contemplated the adaption of such a course. Even though the circumstances were a hundred times more serious than they are, there would be no justification whatever for calling upon the Chief Justice to arbitrate on a question that probably had its provocative origin in unguarded impulsiveness. Parliament has within itself ample power for dealing efficiently with the regrettable subject. And if Parliament does not possess sufficient intelligence among its various committees or in a Select Committee comprising the best intellect in the House, then the time is ripe for the election of a more intelligent Parliament. It is beyond reasonable dispute to sav plainly that, whether or no Sir Joseph Ward has said too much or too little, he certainly has said enough to warrant a strong demand for evidence in support of his oblique assertion that he had been precluded from going on the London loan market for eighteen months because of a decision by his predecessor. Mr. Stewart’s reputation for fairness and careful financial administration has been so well established throughout his Parliamentary and public career that both sides on the Opposition benches immediately became as an undivided party in demanding proof of the accusation made against him. When hard pressed for a full explanation, the Prime Minister took skelter behind a contention that the evidence against Mr. Stewart was under the seal of secrecy and confidence. Since Sir Joseph Ward’s position indisputably is untenable, he cannot complain if, as indicated, the Opposition as a whole pursue him relentlessly for irrefutable proof of his allegations concerning Mr. Stewart’s responsibility for the embargo on loans. But pursuit may not end the trouble. If, by any chance, the Reform Opposition and the Labour Party combine to defeat tlie Government on a point of honour rather than on a political point, what would be the subsequent positions of the rival parties? Would either of them take over the reins of Government and attempt to carry on the administration of the country without its mandate, or would they agree to allow Sir Joseph Ward to seek a dissolution of Parliament and thus enter upon an emergency election as the Goi'emment Party?

DERELICT HOUSES

rIERE will be general support for Mr. F. N. Bartram’s proposal that the City Council be asked to initiate a clearance of the city's derelict houses. In the last few years the council has been singularly reluctant to attack this problem, and not since Jermvn Street was eliminated by the opening of Auzae Avenue has any squalid area been cleared. The task is, of course, not without its difficulties. In a lowly part of the general economic scheme the old and decrepit dwelling often has a place because it happens to be the only type of habitation that unfortunate people of very limited means can afford. Except in very few cases, the people who live in a house which is rotting on its foundations are decidedly not living there from choice, but simply because the rent for such a place is usually low, and they cannot face the expense of moving to something better. If houses are condemned on any wholesale scale, the position of the evicted residents has to he considered. Many of them realise that, quite apart from municipal action, their homes are theirs only on sufferance. As soon as the land is wanted for factories, warehouses or foundries, out they must go. In the meantime the owners are content to accept a low rental so long as they are not obliged to spend much money on the upkeep of buildings whose life can not at most be more than a few more years. In contrast with this class of owner there is the other class who extorts as high a rent as he can from his “slum” properties. Tn its dealings with this type of landlord the City Council should be prepared to use every weapon at its command to force the owner to respect the rights of his tenants. But this is a difficult attitude for the council to adopt when it has itself been so conspicuously indifferent. Even the most cursory examination of the narrow streets and alleys of some of the more congested areas will persuade the observer that here little effort has been made to introduce the civic standards adopted in more favoured localities. Footpaths scored by water runnels; alleys paved loosely with cinders instead of macadam or bitumen: lanes overgrown with grass or littered with rubbish—all these offer their evidence of neglect. If the callous landlord cannot be exculpated, the council must bear its share of the reproaches, for on its part a more generous and more courageous policy would long since have encouraged some effort on the part of the private interests concerned. Now that Mr. Bartram’s notice of motion has drawn attention to the situation, councillors should not let the subject rest. If houses exist which have been condemned on the score of unhealthiness for a number of years, they should be demolished at once. But care should be taken that the City does its share toward effecting improvements, and that unfortunate families or individuals are not victimised in the process.