LIBERAL POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1919, Page 4

LIBERAL POLICY.

MR. WILFORD AT ELTHAM, REPLY TO THE PREMIER. THE ATTITUDE TO LABOR. (By Telegraph.—Special Reporter.) Elthani, Last Night. Mr. T. M. Wilford replied to Mr. Mas* sty's speech of last Wednesday evening at the Town Hall here this evening. Mr G. W. Taylcr presided, and the building was packed, those present including many from Stratford and Hawera, Mr. Wilford was received with enthusiastic applause and throughout the meeting was listened to with marked attention. Mr. Wilford expressed his gratitude for the large attendance. He was not one of those who thought they could make a new world ot New Zealand. What they should do was try and improve what they had, and he was going to place before them some constructiva ideas, and as one who had been ft quarter of a century in Parliament, make some suggestions. The Liberals stood between the reactionary party and extreme Labor. The aim of the Labor Party to-day was to get rid of the liberals so that at the next election there would be a straight out issue bewteea the Federation of Labor and the Reform Party. Speaking of the Liberal Party he could tell them that Sir Joseph Ward would not consent to hold office if to do bo he was depending on men liko Messrs Holland, Semple and Fraser. Sir Joseph Ward and his party would have nothing to do with extremists, Red Feds, or men without a country. It would not be Sir Joseph Ward who would have to move a motion of no confidence in the new Parliament. That could bo done by the man leading thai minority and that man would be Mr. Massev. It' would be him, not Sir Joseph Ward who would have to look to extreme Labor Mr Wilford pointed out that in the past the Liberals had 'received the majority of the Labor vote in every constituency. The Liberal Party did not stand for revolutionary processes, but for evolution, and the men who should have charge of the destinies of the country were men who loved their country. THE LAND QUESTION. . In speaking on the land question Mr. Wilford said there was notniiig so important W to have a sound land policy. At present they were subject to the greatest of menaces—land aggregation. Mr. Massey said in the House that his Government had produced 19,000 subdivisions of land. He (Mr. Wilford) had asked how many people they had settled, and Mr. Massey could not answer that important question. It was not how many people had been cut out of land, hut how many people had been settled on the land. The only way to stop aggregation was by taxation, limiting the area and by refusing to register a transfer. Not only was the Reform Government not agilnst aggregation, but during their term of office there had been more aggregation than ever before. , A voice: We have it in Taranaki, too. If not, it is the only place where it is not going on, said Mr. Wilford. As an instance of what was going on they could take Apiti, in the Minister of Land's own electorate. THE COALITION. Mr. Wilford dealt with the agreement between the Liberals and Reformers when the Coalition Government was formed, and said that this agreement had not been broken by Sir Joseph Ward. Th* National Government had been formed to win the war, but it had proved Useless for domestic legislation, which could not be introduced because of the coalition agreement. It was the key to domestic legislation, which the whole country was crying out for, that Liberal members resigned. He did not want to say anything about the Reformers individually, but they were a weak lot. The first thing the Liberals asked for after secession was legislation to stop land aggregation. They were promised a perfect Bill. Clause 19 Of this Bill, which proposed to stop forever land aggregation, was the silliest and most feeble attempt to deal with ono of the greatest problems of the country he had ever read. The Bill had been described as the 'Bill with the gossamer trick. The* clause was dropped like a hot cake or like a vote for a certain railway in Taranaki (laughter). A new clause was introduced—prepared by someone, he could not find out who—and this clause was one of the weakest attempts to deal with a serious question he had known, and the second attempt was worse than the first. Yet the Prime Minister stood on this platform and told them he had stopped aggregation. OTHER QUESTIONS. Mr. Wilford referred to the need for ft clmnge in the incidence of taxation,'and condemned Sir James Allen's military training scheme. If the Reform Party returned to power, Sir James Allen's scheme, providing for four months in camp, would come to patss in 1920. Sir James Allen was the strong man of his party, and it would not matter what other members might say. Referring to naval matters, Mr. Wilford said that to haw an effective navy for New Zealand would coat at least twenty millions. A navy was unnecessary. The Liberal Party stood against a local navy and favored an increased subsidy. Referring to profiteering, Mr. Wilford stated that the Board of Trade Bill, for which Mr. Massey took so much credit for his party, had been prepared by the Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald. All Mr. Massey had to do was to substitute Ms own name. He condemned the failure of Mr. Massey to keep his promise that he would replace his Absolute Majority Act with something better. As matters stood, minorities could be victorious. Mr. Massey's solemn promise, publicly made, had been broken. After dealing with various other matters, Mr. Wilford concluded amidst applause. On the motion of Mr. Leherke, Mr. Wilford was thanked for his able, instructive, and interesting speech,, and confidence was expressed in the Liberal Party. The motion was carried with cheers and applause which lasted tsotno time.