NATIONAL CABINET.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 July 1915, Page 5

NATIONAL CABINET.

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S REPLY. I A POSER FOR MR. MASSKV. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. To-night Sir Joseph Ward issued ! -is reply to Jlr. Masey's letter of last night, regarding the Coalition proposals, in which he «ays, inter alia:—"ln reference to your statement that there was no substantial body of public opinion suggesting a larger representation for the Opposition than three members in a, National Cabinet of nine members, 1 would remind you that you yourself j recognised the inadequacy of tint, represensation by substituting Re 0r..-- contained in your letter of the 27th inst. I am not aware that the alteration was made as the result of any expression of public opinion that could he ascertained by either of us. If your idea is that the ratio of representation should be based on an expression of public opinion, I would point out that this process might easily tend to defeat the very object you have in review. I regret I cannot agree with the view your express in that portion of your letter dealing with the numerical strength of the twj parties in the House, nor with the deduction you draw from the premises that the effective voting strength of the Government party gives it a majority of one and to attempt now to differentiate be-1 tween the Liberal members and the I Labor members comprising the Oppos'i-1 lion. While in your previous letter yo'.i treated (he Opposition, and rightly "so, ' I as one body, that cannot help to elucidaie I the position, or to serve any other ur'-

ful purpose. U is obvious thiit no Government litiltlin«r oflico with a slender majority could hope to administer the all'airs of tin l country with conl'ideinc ttiul clliciency, in a time swell as this, without (lie assistance of the Opposition, and it is with a frank desire to give you this assistance that I and those associated with me have considered your proposals. With reference to the paragraph of vour letter referring to fie portfolios of Finance, Defence, and Railways. I may remind you that the gentle-j man. who stands next to you in the I Cabinet holds the portfolios' of finance and Defence. The .Minister of Railwa- s stands third in order. The question of salary in my view has no hearing at all on the point, and 1 have never {riven it tin l slightest consideration. J. think you j will agree with me that it would' be ; absurd to measure the importance of i a portfolio by the salary attached to it i at a time when we are dealing with ' matters of vastlv more importance. . Apart from this, however, the proposal . for a National Cabinet originated in ' . the desire that (lie Government should . be strengthened at a time when a frre.it . national call was being made upon its ," services. The demand centred round the defence administration and the position of money for the carrying on ilie war and financial exigencies. It would be of little service to the country for tlie Opposition, through me, (o agree to join a National Cabinet, and its representatives to be allotted portfolios ha-- ■ iug no connection with these department-. I notice that you question my ■ staiemeul as to ilie serious condition of ' the finance of the dominion. I am very i glad lo have your assurance that there I i- no ground for inv misgivings on this • point, but the information available to (he 1 Opposition and the public discloses a 1 position which, in my judgment, demands • (he most serious ' consideration from those responsible for the administration of the all'airs of the country. It is not presumptuous on the part of the Opposition. I think, to believe that its ropivsentalive might give you useful assistance in this respect. Your suggestion that equality would produce a deadlock implies that such a contingency would be overcome by a majority of Reform Ministers in the Cabinet. It seems to me that this arrangement would produce a condition of all'airs even more ,lec plorable than a deadlock, and I cannot t help expressing the opinion that if a b deadlock occurred it would bo bettor 5 dealt with by a mutual exchange of 1 views than bv the dominance of a single party. . '.,._, L ,i : ;;lfi!