THE NATIONAL CABINET.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1915, Page 2

THE NATIONAL CABINET.

ITS MEMBERS AND ITS CRITICS. (From Our Special Correspondent.) Wellington, Oct. 15. An article which appeared in the New Zealand Times of Tuesday, soundly rating the Liberal members of the National Cabinet for what the writer calls their "extraordinary compliance." in the fell designs of their Reform colleagues, is still being discussed in political circles hero with considerable animation. Though subject to more or less pronounced spasms of independence, the Times has long been regarded as the specially accredited organ of the Liberal Party, and its assumption of the role of the censorious friend has occasioned as much surprise as it has amusement on one side of politics and indignation on the other, That it played the part in no half-hearted fashion everyone who has read the article will admit, but that it was just to the Liberal Ministers or altogether ingenuous in its statement of the position is not quite so obvious. RELUCTANT LIBERALS. It is, of course, too early to pronounce final judgment upon the National Cabinet or upon individual Ministers. We have not yet got this new administrative machine in its true perspective. A year hence we may be able to say with some authority, or at any rate with some knowledge, whether it has been a success or a failure, or merely something between the two. But even then we shall have to remember the circumstances in which it came into existence, and the limitations imposed upon it by its composition. The Liberal Party is not responsible for the formation of the National Cabinet. It offered what seemed to a majority of its members a better arrangement for, dealing effectively with the grave problems arising out of the war, and it sought no aggrandisement for itself in any shape or form. It displayed, indeed, a very admirable spirit of self-abnega-tion without renouncing any of its obligations to the constituencies. THE COMPROMISE. But Mr, Massey and his colleagues, probahly with a fuller knowledge of the needs of the situation than Sir Joseph Ward and his friends had at the time, were bent upon sharing their full Ministerial responsibilities with their political opponents, and when they offered equal representation in the Cabinet and a fair distribution of portfolios, the' Liberals really had no alternative short of declining to come to the assistance of the Crown in a great national crisis. It was at this stage that the critics of the Liberal Ministers should have raised their present objections. What has happened since became inevitable directly party warfare was suspended. When the Reformers and Liberals entered the Cabinet together, the interests of the EmSire, no less than the requirements of le Constitution, demanded the compromise and unanimity of which the critics are now complaining. Without this compromise and unanimity, the whole proceedings would have been a farce and would have rapidly developed into a tragedy. THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR. That a National Cabinet formed in this way would be entirely satisfactory to either political party no one acquainted with all its disabilities could have honestly expected. Least of all could it be satisfactory to* those impatient spirits who wished domestic legislation to go on as usual. Nor could it be reasonably expected that in a twinkling of an eye, so to speak, even the members of the Cabinet could accomodate themselves to the novel conditions produced by the exigencies of war. The majority of them have done well, Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Massey extraordinarily well, but there have been little lapses from the high ideals which form the very essence of the arrangement which must not be repeated if the party truce is to endure. The introduction of the tenure question into the "Washing-up" Bill was quite inexcusable, and the failure to remove some of the flagrant grievances of Labor was neither generous nor politic. Labor is doing its part in connection with the war so magnificently that the war should not be made an excuse for neglecting its demands. OABINET RULE. The complaints that the Libferal members of the Cabinet are being dominated by their Reform colleagues are simply ridiculous. Complaints to just the reverse effect are being made on the other side, and with just as much reason. The truth is that the constitution of the Cabinet has brought about conditions approximating quite as closely as Mr. Craigie, the member for Timaru, predicted they would to the conditions prevailing in Switzerland, where the existence of an elected executive encourages initiative and independence on the part of individual Ministers. Here the tendency is restrained by war conditions, but there was plenty of evidence during the recent session of Parliament that Ministers were exercising a good deal more personal discretion than they would have been allowed in a purely party Cabinet. No ono could doubt that Sir Joseph Ward was in full control of the Treasury or that Mr. Massey was omnipotent in the Lands Department or that Mr. Myers and Mr. Russell were going about their business in the way they thought best themselves. Mr. Allen's aggressive assumption of exclusive authority has been made a special count in the indictment of the Liberal members of the Cabinet, but, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Defence lias been subject during the last few weeks to more repression, to put it euphemistically, than has the youngest of hjs colleagues. No one who knows anything of Sir Joseph Ward or of his public career will suspect him of tolerating any interference with the administration of his own departments, or any attempt to impair the usefulness of the other representatives of his party. THE RANK AND FILE. The local Reform organs have been dealing with the party truce from another point of view and, apparently, with the object of casting what discredit they can upon those Liberal and Labor members of the House who ventured to oppose some of the proposals of the National Cabinet. Their contention seems to be that the Cabinet should have the unanimous support of Parliament in whatever it chooses to do, right or wrong, and that the member who does not subscribe to this perilous doctrine is a traitor to his country. The sane section of the public is not likely to pay much heed to criticism of this kind. The existence of a National Cabinet, with its tongue-tied members who could raise no word of protest against the decision of the majority, imposed special duties and responsibilities upon the rank and file of both parties, and it will remain to their everlasting credit that on the wholo they discharged these duties uncommonly well. They would have been false to their constituents and to