The Daily News. THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1901. THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 68, 4 April 1901, Page 2

The Daily News. THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1901. THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

Whkn Mr. Oliver Samuel read the laboured and fulsome article which appeared in the columns of eur evening contemporary en Tuesday evening en the short after dinner speech made by him on the eccagioa of the banquet tendered by the people of Stratford to the Minister of Public Works, he must have ejacujafc- 4. " Save me from my friends," Our contemporary says: —" Mr Samuel made . a suggestion? which, if not new, had at least the merit of being well timed. He was ppnaking of the efforts made by the Government to encourage production by providing cheap railage to the ports, and by assisting in obtaining cheap steamer freights to foreign maukets, which it is also endeavouring to find. While giving the Government credit for its efforts in these directions, he pointed out that a gap was kft which would prevent full advantage being reaped from the success of those efforts. The weak link, he said, was the deficient harbour accommodation and the heavy fcarbour dues, and he argued that the harbours of the colony should be taken oyer and managed by the Government as part and parcel of the railway system." This is rather a weak summary of Mp Samuel's remarks but the pojut is summed by our contemporary pretty correctly as fellows: —This, of course, I means nothing more or less than the I nationalisation of the harbours, rather a large undertaking, but one which it jean be shewn would bo to the advantage of all concerned." Of course Mr I Samuel did cot intend his remarks to be taken literally. Mr Samuel was sitting next to a Minister ef the Grown who had just been showing how prosperous the affairs of the Colony were under the Administration of which he was a member,and naturally Mr Samuel wanted to say something nice; but considering tfee re'ations existing betwenn himself and the party to which the Minister belonged, it wag necpsstry <o point out that there was just one little fly in the ministerial pot of ointment, and that was the neglect of the Ministry to go a little further, and be advised by Mr. Simuel on at least one p»iut in their programme. Our contemporary in supposing Mr. Samuel meant what he said hss placed him in a very awkward position. This is apitybecaue everybody who heard Mr. Samuel rather erjjoyrd bis speech. Mr, Samuel has a nice easy delivery, is so we'l informed,and has such a command of langoage that, it is always a treit to listen to him ; but we venture to say that no one took him seriously. To do so is to believe that Mr. Samuel bas gone back on the party which baa for many years i received his whole htarted support, and is inconsistent with the whole of his past professions ef political faith. The cbiif phtik in the political platform of the party now in office is the Government of the cojony by the people for the peaple, For this purpose the national'satien of railways, postal and other public departments, has be c n kept steadily in view, yet Mr. Samuel has been one of tho most uncompromising opponents of the psrty and its policy, | and in the case of tho railways pkcsd ihem under the control of conim'ssioners. Mr.Samuel teld hisaudienceat the banquet in question that the people of Taranaki had been badly treated in the matter of railways and that in the " battle of routes " they had been unfairly defeated; handed over to the

South Island members, and sold. At* Mr. Samuel was a member of the House he should know something about it. Y«t for years he supportad the Government -which was the means of Taranaki [ being eo unfairly defend. Mr, Simuel congratulated the Government on their success which, in spite ef the opposition of the party Mr. Samnel supports, even he cannot now demy, yet Mr. Samuel is stil in opposition and would thrust them out of offico to-merrow. At the last election Mr. Samuel's nominees contested seats in Taranaki with Gavernment supporters. These candidates, and indeed leaders of the party, insisted everywhere that while they were prepared to accept the legislation, the administration of the Government was lamentably bad, so bad indeed as to justify them in asking the electors to turn out the Government and place the adii inistration in their hands. In tfee' case of Egmont the opponent of the' sitting member, a strong Government supporter, made this ■ his main paint-. " Vote for Monkhouse and purity of administration " was the election erf, and Mr Monkhouse claimed Mr Samuel's special favour and support, yet we now find Mr Samuel advocating handing over the administration of the harbour to the Government, whose administration he so short a time ago condemned. Wehaveonly tocendudeeitber j that we hive to welcome Mr. Samuel as a convert to Liberalism, or that he wos pulling the Ministerial leg. If the former, we congratulate him on having seen the error of his ways; if the latter, we warn him that he is playing a dangerous game. Ministers, as a rule, do not like to have their l»g pulled, particularly in public, and Ministerial leg pulling at a time when a Minister is a distinguished guest ef an important Borough, is hardly treating a Minister of the Grown with the respeofc due to his positieo. We leave it for Mr. Samnel to explain whether he has abandoned hi« opposition to Government administration or wa« merely having a joke at the expense of the Minister of Railwayo.