WELLINGTON TOPICS

Taihape Daily Times, 16 October 1919, Page 5

WELLINGTON TOPICS

LIBERALS AND REFORMERS‘

TH‘E DIVIDING LIN ES.

WELLIANGT'O‘N,— Oct. 15.

i ‘The “Evening Post’’’ still is trying A to persuade-the leaders of the two old parties there is no difference’-between their policies, and by way of facilitating their reconciliation and the restoration of the Nation Cabinet it is telling Mr Massey his election manifesto is no better than Sir Joseph Ward’S, except that it is briefer and just a lit‘tle less prodigal. in its promises. The “Post” in these days is essentially an apostle of -compromise. It wishes '6O live in harmony with all political} 'creeds and to be saved from any anociation with party controversies.‘ But its appeal for peace is in vain. The Liberals and the Reformers are definitely and irretrievably apart and what'ever may be the result of the general. election they will notibe drawn into the old arrangement. What ‘will reémain, however, as a very happy herit-I age from the “coalition” will be lessened personal asperity, more party tolerance and broader understandings. Of these there already is abundant evidence. ) I 9 A POINT OF CLEAVAGE. One ‘point of cleavage between the parties was brought into strong relief during the debate in the House on -the Discharged Soldiers,’ Settlement Amendment Bill. _‘ Sir Joseph Ward led off by expressing in generous terms -his concurrence with the proposals of the Government for extending additional benefits to "the soldiers under itsland] settlement scheme, but later on the question of compulsory acquisieion was raised and the difference between the Liberals and the Reformers, or at any rate, between the stalwa_l;ts~ among the Liberal; and they leaderiqot the _Refqrmers,l..a_t‘ once became‘ apparent, Mr Hanan, Mr Wil:'Eord,:A_ and 'Mr Mecanum; . . all _‘ insisted that _‘ without’ compulsion ‘_ _muc_h _ excellent land which ought‘ to be availa;ble_ for settlement‘ would remain I hands _of_" wealthy mo_nopo_lists_' Wilfordmrehferred ‘particularly to“ the rich ’lenas'in thevflawkesi Bay district from which" the small man was absol-_ rutely excluded. ‘ ‘ .4 ' ' THE ‘PRIME ‘MINIS'I‘ER’S VIEW. 1 ' Mr Massey, while .not saying in so many words he wasopposed to com-! pulsory acquisition, made it quite clear ‘ he had no liking for the process and no intention of employing it unless all othermeans failed. Compulsion. he‘ said, might involve some ‘hardship and} in any case was enormouslyioxpensive. ] His own experience was that there was no difliculty in obtaining land for‘ §oldirs, Values were highz but when’ ‘the Government offered cash ipurchasés‘! were usually effected at reasonable prices. He mentioned a number of estates that had been acquired below their marketvalue, particularly in- i stancing the Gladbrooke and Teviot properties in Otago and purchases from Messrs Bidwill, Riddiford, McHardy and Armstrong. He thought the’ Land Department had done very Well in providing forsoldier settlement and saw no necessity so far for the adoption of more drastic methods of acquisition. ~ { 3: OTHER D 1 VISIONS. ‘ Both Reformers and Liberals realise that the lines of demarcation between them are very much better defined than the “Post” would have the public -believe. Wereit not so, there would be no occasion for them to criticise the manifesto of their rival leaders as they are doing. The Reforyners are. declaring that Sir Joseph Ward is out; to buy votes at any price, that he‘ Would commit the country to an expenditure of twenty or thirty millions upon visionary schemes and that his return to oflice would mean a huge addition to the annual“ burden of_ taxa-) tion. The Liberals are describing Mr Masseyg promises as more specious and more elusive than Sir Joseph Ward's and likely to be twenty times more costly if they were evercarriedy into effect. How the two views are to be reconciled and their holders brought again into the same camp is be‘.-’OUd the comprehension of the man in the. street.