THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12638, 27 October 1905, Page 2

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

THE WANGANUI SEAT

MR BASSETT AT THE OPERA HOUSE.

Mr. W. G. Bassett opened his cam j paign last evening, when he addressed %, meeting in the Opera Houss. The .night was atrocious—iv fact, the worst .experienced for some considerable time, —jet despite this there was a very large audience. . Mr. J H. Keesing occupied the -chair. , ~ Mr Keesing, in introducing Mr. Bi:s&ett, said that as he was known to bo a distinct opponent of Mr. Bassett, iind as he held no pubho position in the town he would like to explain why ho was occupying the chair. His Worship the Mayor being out of town, Mr. Jias.sett thought of asking the senior councillor (Mr E. N. Liffiton) to tako the chair, but as Mr. Liffiton was a member of Mr. Bassett's committee, ho thought it would not be wise, as Mr. liiffiton might be credited with partisanship in ruling the meeting. He had therefore asked the speaker to take the chair, as he could be quite impartial. JVIr. keesing was opposed to Mr. Bas£ett, but he liked a fair fighter. Ho thought they would all admit that Mr .Bassett had served the community well in several positions of honour and trust for some years .past. He might not Jiava acted in accordance with the speaker's views, but everybody would agree that he had acted honestly. (Applause.) He was quite sure that the liberals of Wanganui could look forward to a fair fight so far as Mr. Bas•.sett was concerned. Mr. Bassett, who was warmly received, said he desired to express his appreciation of the manner in which -4he ratepayers had responded to his request to meet him. As he left his .house in the pouring rain he did not -expect to see more than a hundred 2>fople at the meeting, and he indeed Jelt gratified that such a large number .of ladies and gentlemen should have Jbraved the elements to hear hum. It ; •wad not reasonable that he should ex- j pect all his hearers to agree with him -on the political sentiments to which he anight give expression, but though they anight differ widely, he felt sure that -when the meeting closed he and his -audience would be on the same cordial terms as they were at the outset, and that however widely they disagreed 4bey would agree to disagree. With iregard to his relation to the political parties of the present time, he was opposed to the present Government. He -would give his reasons for opposition, but he wished to say at the outset that Ilio was not one to say that the Government had absolutely no redeeming features. It was said of human character -that there was none so bad but had .some redeeming features, and he -thought the same might be said or the Government. He honestly confessed •■that this Government had done some -very good work. To say that a Government which had been in power for -thirteen years had done no good work would be an insult to the people of the ■colony, because the people of the -colony would not (tolerate for thirteen _years a Government that could not sshow some good work during that perThe first question he intended to deal 'with was THE LAND QUESTION. He 'took this first because it was /generally recognised as being the most Jive question before the people of the «colony at the present time. There was ;no doubt that the land, administration .-and land occupation and land managejment of any country was most important to the interest and well-being of ■that country; indeed, the profitable -eiEploypieait.pf the "land of any oounto npr-as the keystone to its igreatness and prosperity- There had b&eh a considerable amount of legislation in regard -to our land tenure. The colony ; Jbad classes of political economises, who -each had ;their:,own £&rticular doctrines -with regard to land'tenure. There was, first of all, the freeholder, the man who worked the land. He says that is the in the best interests of the -country and of the farmer who works the land. On the other hand, there was the man who advocated land nationalisation. He told us that if the whole of the lands of the colony were -cut up into reasonable-sized farms and to the people it would be a -panacea to all the troubles the human .family was heir to. How far those .^schools were right, Mr. Bassett was .not going to say at the present time. lie then went on to briefly sketch the sthree principal tenures under which the -Government had been disposing of the Hands of the colony during the last 12 years, and was disposing of it at the "present time. First, there was the if reehold. A considerable portion of land tad been sold for cash, and the Governanent had used the money. The terms "were that the purchaser should occupy -and effect certain improvements, and on their being carried out he got his 1 Crown title by paying the fee simple. "Then there was the lease with right of The tenure covered 25 jrears. During the first ten years the lessee had to occupy, and also effect -certain improvements. Then, provided -the improvements had been carried out to the satisfaction of the ranger, the1 lessee had the right to purchase the Hand at the original valuation. Next -«ame the 999 years' lease. Just why "the term was made 999 years the speaker could not say. It wa3 a 1000 years' "lease less one year—a period more than "half the Christian era. ' One of the -principal planks of the present Government's land policy was the non--alienation of the lands of the colony— the land of the State for the ■benefit of the State. With regard to -the history of the 999 years' lease, that tenure was a compromise between the -freeholder arid the land nationaliser. Jt was a kind of bastard tenure, amd -was brought about in this way: There were the two political schools in the toolony at the time this lease was put -on the Statute Book—the freeholder on -one side, leaseholder on the other, and -a compromise had <to be effected. The .freeholder practically held his weapon «at the Government's head and said, "Give us the freehold or we fire." On ~the other side, there stood the leaseholder, and he said, "If you part'with the land we fire." The Government ■was in a quandary between the two. Tbey came to the nationaliser and -said, "Will you be satisfied if we proanise not to part with the freehold, — will you trust us with regard to the leasehold?" The nationaliser said, "Yes." Then the Government went to the freeholder en the other side of the '.fence and said, "We know you have strong sentiments on this question. We .know you are wedded to this title. We want to satisfy you, but there is a man on the other side of the fence. Will you bo satisfied if we give you a 999 years' tenure right through the period? Will you be satisfied with that?" The "former said, "Decidedly yes, Ave'll be .just as satisfied as if we had the freehold." So the compromise was effected, and the land boom began. The farmers began to fell the bush and grass the land, produce wool, mutton,. Gutter, and so forth. Then the leasebolder became dissatisfied, and began bis agitation with the Government. He ■said, "Why, these people have got this land practically for ever; there's no revaluation ; you might as well give them ithe freehold." The class of farmer who held a lease under that particular tenure had become alarmed. The man who took up the freehold was satisfied; he felt secure. The man working under the right to purchase tenure was ■.satisfied, but the other felt that his Aenure was being menaced. Because

why? Because the Government had brought down a Fair Rent Bill, and according to the highest legal authority in the colony that Bill included ovt'ry one of the 999 years leaseholders. In addition to the menace of this Fair Rent Bill, there was also the menaoa of a political organisation, one of the planks of whose platform was that in future- no lands should be sold; that all future tenures should have a provision for revaluation. Mr. Bassott at this point gave the land rationalisers every credit for straightforwardness and sincerity. With ragard to the holders of 999 lease (who numbered about 1000), the effect of the Bill would be that each would be allowed to occupy to the end of his life, but when he died the Goveriroent would have power to re-valuo the land. See how Iniquitous that would be, said Mr. Baesett. Here were two men. Both had held their farms for ten years, and both had improved it, and 4one all the country wanted. Ono of the men died, and left his family to carry on that farm. , The State camo in at once ajnd re-valued the land. The family might be struggling against great difficulties, yet the valuation might be raised twice or thrice. The other man might live 20 or 30 years, yet his valuation would remain as originally fixed. This was not fair. Should a man sell his lease the land was re-valued. The question resolved itself into this: The Government had er.tered into a solemn compact with 1000 farmers, and was the country goino- to break faith with those people? That was the question that would be settled in a short time. If the Government was going to break faith and practically cancel thesa leases and make them subject to periodical revaluation, it would give this country a reputation which it would be ashamed of in a short time. (Applause.) Mr. Bassett was sure that the sense of justice and fair play in the people of this colony 1 would never consent to such a thing being done. These farmers were now asking that they should be put on the same footing as those men who took tip their land on the 25 years' tenure. Under that tenure the rent paid was 5 per cent, on the capital value at the time it was taken up. The rent on the 999 years' tenure was 4 per cent, on the capital value at the time it was taken up. The 999 years men said, "Put us on the same footing as U « men who hold their land for 25 years with right of purchase- We are willing to pay the extra 1 per cent, between what we are paying and what we should have paid had we taken the other tenure, plus compound interest on that amount up to the time we converted into the freehold." Was that a fair request? There was one farmer under the 25 years' tenure, and there was another under the 999 years' lease. The 25 years' man had the right to purchase, and there was no talk of interfering with him. The 999 years' man had the fear of his lease being broken unless he was prepared to pay the increased rent. He had asked to bo placed on the same terms as his neighbour. Mr. Bassett said he was not prepared to say exactly what he would advocate with regard to the terms upon which the&a tenants should be allowed <to convert their leases into freehold. They should be allowed to convert on the basis of present valuation. He admitted that there were difficulties in the way, because many of the leases had changed hands, and many of the purchasers had paid a handsome premium, and if the Government were to value that land to-day and call on the people to pay the capita' value, those men would be paying twice for their land. This position hail become alarming to the present Government. At Christchurch the other day Mr. Seddon said he had passed through a district occupied by these fai-mers,;.and theykwere demanding the freehold.'"'., The Government -were con? cerned because " they could see these farmers meant business. Instead of putting their backs to the-'wall and standing firm -to the principles they professed, vizi^ the non-alienatioft or the public estate, and saying emphatically to the people, "We will not give you this," what had they done? Ap-: pointed a Commission which had cost between £15.000 and £20,000, and Mr. Bassett said' without hesitation .that that money had practically been thrown away. There was absolutely no need for this Commission, as the Government could have obtained all the information from its officials and the leaseholders by simply communicating with them by post. £200 or £300 would have sufficed. But that did not suit the Government's policy. Instead of formulating a policy on the report brought down, the Government had thrown it on the floor of the House. The Premier had not dared to adopt it. He waa afraid to do it. He had been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition to bring down a clear-cut policy. He had been challenged to make a no-confidence motion of it, but he had not dared to do it. At the present time Mr. Seddon wa3 making at every function some reference to the doctrine of "the land for the people." He called upon the people to stand by the old flag, and to see that no injustice was done to the country, and Mr. Bassett believed that at the same time Mr. Seddon was secretly praying every right and day that the freehold might b^> granted. (Laughter.) Mr. Bassett said he was not a prophet, but he believed that before the Premier would allow the House to rise the demand of those people would be granted. Mr. Seddon spoke a great deal about the unearned increment attaching to these lands. It had been said that to grant the freehold to the leaseholders would be to make'them a present of an enormous sum of money. (Hear, hear.) " 'Hear, hoar,' " says some," continued Mr. Bassett. "I defy anyone to prove that it will be to give these peo pie a solitary shilling. I will prove that the bargain is on the side of the State." Mr. Bassett went on to say that the leaseholder would be satisfied if he were not menaced on all sides. The Premier had said_the unearned increment would amount to from one million to three millions sterling. With regard to that, the Land Commission's report should be sufficient answer. The Premier should be more careful about his figures wh-an. the facts were supplied by his own officers. [The 'above appeared in our yesterday's issue, and is reprinted to-day for the convenience of our readers.]

The value of the land at the time it was taken was £6,629,263, and the present valuation was £7,378,038. Those were the two values put on by the Government Valuer-General, and yet tho Premier was telling the country that if the leaseholders got tbp freehold the Government would be making them a present of millions of money. The difference between the present and original values was slightly under £750,000. Did this belong to the leaseholders or the people of New Zealand? Mr. Bassett contended that, under the terms under which they got the land it was the leaseholders', and the Premier or anyone else was not right to state that this would be a gift to the people. It was already theirs. Whether it was right or not that they should have got the land was another question. Tho country should sac thut those terms were carried out. Mr. Bassett illustrated his point in this wif": He had 2500 acres under this terure. He put £1000 on it. He sold it to a man for £1500, and therefore made £500 by the transaction. Would ai.ybody say "that belonged to the State? Suppose tho Government said, "We will grant you the freehold on these terms—namely, that you pay the present value at the time took up tho land." And suppose the whole of those farmers came in one day and

paid for their lands plus £750,000. If tho State took that £750,000 and placed it out at 3£ per cent, it would bring iv a revenue of £2(3,250, or £26,223,----750 during th>3 currency of the leases. Did anyone mean to 6ay" that if tho people continued to hold their lands to tho end of their leases the State would touch that money? Not a penny. And yet that was the proposal made by many, and that would b3 accepted by the fanners. The money would be a benefit in that they would handle it every year. But suppose our beneficent Government concerned about the millions of unborn people who will inhabit our land in 1000 years' time, ' said this money does nob belong to us; we have no-moral right to it. We will invest this £75,000 for the benefit of the unborn millions that will people this land when the leases expire. What would bo the result? If the money were invested at 2 per cent, it would double itself in 35 years, and at the end of 99'J years it would amount to a sum which would make Mr. Seddon's mouth water to think of using. It would be sufficient to pay the national debt of every country on the earth, as it would amount to £146,767,085,568,000,000. Mr. Bassett then went on to deal with tho merits of the tenures, lease and freehold. He contended that the freehold was the tenure that would produce tho greatest amount of products from the soil. One had only to go to any town to see numerous illustrations of the benefits of the freehold tenure. If one saw a nice cottage with neat fence and well kept garden, would he say that man is renting that cottage? No, that man has got the freehold tenure. If one saw a place with broken fences and garden in a disreputable condition, one naturally reasoned, "This is a leasehold tenure." Go through the country and one would find tho same thing. The man who held the freehold would farm more scientifically. As a rule, when a leaseholder found that his lease was expiring he tried to get the utmost out of the land and allowed it to fall into decay. In proof of his contention, Mr. Bassett quoted from the Land Commission's report remarks dealing with pastoral lands. In this connection the speaker said he did not advocate the freehold lor large areas. An unsatisfactory tenuse resulted in the serious depreciation of tho value of the public estate. The report showed that in spite of an increase of more than three-quarters of a million acres there was a decrease in rents of £7413. Those farmers had held short leases, and when the leases were near expiration the farmers, instead of keeping the country in trim, had endeavoured to get the last possible penny out of it. To sum up his position, Mr. Bassett said: I advocate that the farmers holding the 999 years' lease shall be allowed to purchase at the valuation at the time they made the purchase, or that they shall be allowed to make up the difference between the rents they have been paying in the past and the rants they would have paid under the right of purchase. If we wanted to develop, a sturdy, selfreliant yeomanry in our country, we must give the freehold. (Applause.) If w-a wanted to develop a class of farmers who would be a menace to any Government at any time, then convert the whole of the lands into State leases. At the present time we had a Government oa their knees before 100G farmers. And if the whole land were held under leasehold tenure every now and then something would occur and the farmers would come forward with an irresistible demand, and no Government would be strong enough tt> withstand it. Such a state of affairs was not likely to occur with contented freeholders. Mr. Bassett then asked his hearers to thuik of the inconsistency of a Government which advocated the non^alienation of the land and yet had sold for cash 291,167 acres during their term of office. They had gbivthe money and spent it. They* had sold under right of purchase 1,422,794 acres, and under the 999 years' lease there were 1.049,928 aores. The total amount they had disposed of was thus 2,763,889 acres. Every acre of that was gone. With regard to the right to purchase farmers, he did not think there would bo one solitary farm that would not be converted into the freehold, and so far as the 999 years leases were concerned, it was "good-bye to that," unless the Government was going to break faith with the farmers. The Government had mesmerised the people of the country, and they thought they wereT supporting a Government that was keeping the land for the people. The Government had got rid of 212,607 acres every year during their term of office. Just fancy Mr. Seddon going about the country talkiing about keeping the land for the people, tba non-alienation of tho land, wiring to the people to rally around the old flag, and see that no wrong is done to the country; and yet he was parting with 212,607 acres every year! ROADS. A great dsal had been said about the shameful condition of the roads where settlement had. taken place under the present Government. This was what their appointee said: The practice of the State placing colonists on waste lands in advance of roading has been unsatisfactory, and must be condemned. A solvent and flourishing colony cannot be absolved from blame when a calls upon its pioneer settlers to carry out their life's work under conditions inimical to the well-being, happiness, and prosperity of themselves and their families. The evidence of back-blocks settlers has placed the fact beyond doubt that the pioneer work of the colony is being carried on with great enterprise, but, unfortunately, under conditions as to roading so adverse as to seriously jeopardise the success of these out-settlements. It is therefore pointedly accentuated by the Commission that it is the duty of the colony to faco w'th promptitude the expense necessary for the removal of these disabilities." Continuing, Mr. Bassett said the Governement's policy had absolutely broken down in putting people on bush country. The Land Commission had said not only were the settlers seriously handicapped in carrying on their farming, but there has been an enormous waste of money in the carrying out of the roads that had been constructed, and there had been an enormous loss td the country in lands not being brought to a productive state. RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

At the present time, he said, there were 22 different railways under construction. The three principal lines were the Otago Central, the Midland, and the North Island Main Trunk lines. The first ran from Dunedin into the centre of Otago, and on account of the rough wild country through which it passed, it could not be expected to be profitable for a very long time. It would have been in the interests of tho colony to have made th;s line stand aside for many years. The Midland line ran from Christchurch to the West Coast, and from there down to the Buller Gorge and into Nelson. A great deal of money had been expended on this line. Tho construction of a line from Christchurch to the West Coast was important to develop the mining industry, but with regard to its continuation into the Buller Gorge and into tho Nelson district, it was absolutely absurd. Mr. Bassett said he had been over every inch of the country. It was wild and mountainous, and would Kot give a return for 100 years. - It was too rough for settlement, and only a small quantity of gold was being got. Ho believed there were coal seams in the Buller Gorge, but it was too far from the coast to bring revenue. That portion should never have been under : taken. Every year a vote was bein" spent—mostly at the Nelson end, and

some at Westport. The line was now being made between Westport and Reefton, which was very rough country. With regard to the North Island Main Trunk line, it would open up a very largo area of available country. It also would afford a means of communication between two of the chief cities in this island. When it was completed it would pay interest on capital, in addition to working expenses. Now, as to the mariner in which the line was being constructed. He would first draw his hearers' attention to the fact that the Minister of Public Works in his Statement announced a largo increase in the vote for railway works. Of course, nobody knew why the vote had been increased at tho present time; it was a puzzle. Last year the vote for the Main Trunk lino was £154,436; this

year it was £300,000. When one got behind the scenes one could see how the Minister had been husbanding; a nest-egg for this year. Mr. Hall-Jones was on© of the most energetic Ministers in the Cabinet, but he was in bad company, and was learning some bad tricks. Last year there were unexpended votes—roads and bridges £150,------630, tourist roads £687, goldneld roads £32,770. railway construction £390,828, school buildings £29,778, a total of £610,693. Now, that was a very nice little nest-egg to start the financial year with, and it came in very nicely just on the eve of a general election. Mr. Bassett knew vye w^re all selfish, but he considered it was a tricky thing for any Government to hold back £610,000 on its public works in order to be able to swell the amounts this year and catch tho votes of the people. There was no other interpretation of the action. Why wore not the sums spent last year for the purposes for which they were voted? It was twenty years ago since Mr. Bassett tandere'd for the construction of the first section of the Main Trunk line from Marton to Hunterville. What rate of progress had there been? At the south end the Government had made 45 miles, or 2i miles a year. When the contractors used to be given sections of seven or eight miles they used to be given 12 or 18 months to finish the work, and the Government used to whip them up if they did not get it done. And yet this progressive Government, in tho interests of the colony, had carried on the work at the rate of 2i miles a year. At the north end they had constructed 75 miles in 20 years ,or 3| miles per year. Taking tho two ends together, the total rate of progress had been 6 miles per year. Yet every year we were told that' the line would be opened in two or three years. Now Mr. Hall-Jones said he hoped to have the line opened by the time the Christchurch Exhibition was opened next year. This was a most unfair thing to say. It was hoodwinking the people, as he knew it was absolutely impossible. There were 60 or 70 miles to complete, and that would take another ten years at the present rate. If the Government had shown any grasp of the importance of the subject, they would have pushed on with the work. Mr. Bassett said there were contractors (he saw one sitting before him) who would have done the work in ten years. The Makohine viaduct was tendered for at £46,000 by reputable contractors. The Government, pandering to the claim to have the work done by co-operation, refused the tender, and did the work themselves at a cost of £72,000. There was a loss of £20,000. A voice: Who got it ? Mr. Bassett: The workers did not. They wouIS have got as good wages from Wilkie Brothers as from the Government.

Mr. Bassets, continuing, said that tho weakness ,'n regard to the contract system was that the Government did not compel contractors to pay thoir men every fourteen days, and pay them a fair wage. They paid what and when they liked. Contractors would scrape up sufficient money for the deposit, and take a contract for £10,000. They would have storekeeper friends, and would put up shanties where they sold goods to the men. It was no uncommon thing for men to have to wait months for their money. This could have been avoided if the Government had insisted upon the men being paid regularly, and had prohibited truckin&" OLD AGE PENSIONS

was the next subject dealt with. It was one of the saddest pages in the history of our colony to see so many people who had borne the heat and burden of the -day on the cold shores of homelessness and want. Although old age pensions were short of ideal, they were some measure of relief to these peSple. Although he differed considerably with those who advocated a change in our labour economy, he was of opinion that the world had an upward trend, and the time would come when everybody would be able to make provision for old age. There were now 11,770 people—or lin every 3 over 65 years or age, who were residents of 25 years stanaing—in the colony receiving pensions. This was not a satisfactory picture. The Government had removed I'ißß from the pension list for causes other than death. In many cases the Government may have been justified, but in many cases they were not. There were many people who had just got a little home, but nothing to live on. Yet that little homo disqualified them from receiving assistance. But the man who had wasted his money and abused himself was qualified. When people had lived properly for 65 years, and been here 25 years, our common humanity demanded that they should have enough to make th<*m comfortable. Mr. Bassett incidentally remarked that the per capita cost was £1 Us. on the West Coast, as compared Avith ss. Id. throughout the rest of the. colony. Sow this was so he left his hearers to explain. The next question was the WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Bassett had not one word of condemnation for the principle underlying the Act. He recognised that underlying it was the principle of the brotherhood of man, and he was a firm believer in that. We might cry out "Am I my brother's keeper," but we were responsible for each other, and he recognised that the principle of compensation to •workers was just and righteous. If a man was sent to the battle and became injured for life he was given a pension —small, may be* and the speaker held that the same thing should apply to the man going into the industrial battlefield. If a man was seriously injured for life, our common humanity demanded that he should share with us in the good things of the world. And if he was taken off the st<ige of life and his dependents left in need and helplessness, it was the duty of the State to see that they were compensatd for tho loss they had sustained. Mr. Bassett widely differed as to the operation of tho Act, which was far from just. Not only was an employer responsible for the life and limb cf his employees, but anyone who got a worker on his premises was under a responsibility. It you wanted a plumber to go on your roof and ho fell and broke his neck there was a responsibility attaching to you. It first fell on the employer who sent the man there. If he could not compensate the man, it fell on the occupier. Supposing that the house was rented, and the man wjio rented it had no means, the measure Avent further, and claimed on the land on which tho accident happened. If that land was mortgaged, the claim of tho dependents of the worker took priority of the mortgage. The mortgage might bo held by an old man who had put his all in it to secure the necessaries of life, but if tho claim absorbs the wholo mortgago it goes to satisfy it. The measure was far-reaching, and waa mosfc unjust in that respect. (Hear, hear.) It was unjust and inequitable from the employer's standpoint. If an employer exposed the life and limb of his employee to danger, lie should be saddled with the responsibility; but when there was saddk-d on the employer a responsibility for that over which ho had no control it was most iniquitous. In Dunedin a boy, employed by a butcher, fell from his horse and was killed. He was the support of orphan brothers and sisters. Action was taken against the butcher, who had no control over the circumstances. The dependents were deserving of compensation, but not from th© butcher. From the worker's standpoint, the law was inequitable. The employer was made

responsible for the man's life during work hours. But if the man died on hi; way from work there was no compensation. The Government looked upon that as a mere accident, and no provision was made. This was not consistent, and if the Government had had a right sense of their responsibility they would have brought down a comprehensive measure covering the whole 2i. hours of the seven days of the week. (Applause.) Although the speaker had criticised the measure, he would be no party to interfering with the law as it stood, but he would on every occasion give support to a measure that covered the men for the whole 24 hours. SUPERANNUATION. Mr. Bassett had every sympathy with this. He would assist in every way to ! have tho schemes now before the coun - j try consummated, not because he s thought they were just and right, but ! because he thought they were equivaj lent to what the late Sir Harry Atkineon proposed—a national insurant's . soheme. He wished td point out the ' difficulties of this superannuation scheme. It would cover all civil serj vants and all persons engaged under ' a written agreennent. If the scheme \ wont no further than to provide superi annuation for these classes, it would be !■ nost inequitable and unreasonable. Out- ■ fido of those sections thero was an ' army of workers engaged in all kinds of occupations. These superannuation schemes were being built up out of the • revenue. The Harbour Board recently had before it a superannuation scheme " based on these lines. The workers had ! to pay in accordance to their incomes. . Tho Harbour Board had to pay a simi- ; la? amount. The Board had to be re- '•■ sponsible for the sound actuarial posi- ! tion of the scheme. In addition the ! Harbour Board had to contribute the ; whole or a "large part of the working ' expenses. Therefore the public had to : contribute more than one-half of the • scheme. The effect would be this: The : great mass of the workers outside the ''• publio servioe would be contributing ■ out of their wages and through the ■ customs to the upbuilding of a superannuation fund for a section of peojuo who in the main were better off than : themselves. (Applause.) On the ra.il--1 ways there were navvies and on the ■ Harbour Boards there were lumpers, and it was unfair that these men 1 should pay from their wages for the benefit of the employees of public ser- ' vices, while they were not benefiting Ito the extent of one penny. If in the House he would vote tor these schemes, ' as ho believed we would see consumj mated a scheme that would provide ! for every man and woman in the col-

The next question was that of INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

He believed that the time was coming when international disputes would bo settled by arbitration. The Arbitration Act was on its trial. Since the Act had 'been in operation there had been no dull time, but if a dull time came the measure wouiS get a rude I shock, and we would discover some weak points in it. Up to the present time these laws had worked with considerable friction. This was not to be wondered at. Anyone who knew anything about practical mechanics would know that however perfected the mechanism was it did not reach its maximum development for some time. So with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Court made mistakes, the workers made mistakes, and the employers made mistakes. Some of the workers had considered that the more friction they caused Ihe better it would hi for them, but Mr. Bassett argued otherwise. The employers had chafed oi finding they were bound down by laws which they had never'before felt. A portion ofe bur labour laws were rot beneficial to a considerable section of workers, and he thought that a good many men were beginning to realise it. He had no objection to men banding themselves together for their mutual protection. He believed that the trend of the labour laws, though irksome at the present time, was in the upward direction, and the time would come when things would work smoother and wo would recognise that we were much better for them. They were unjust to some sections. He considered that all men and women who had reached 65 years of age should be exempt from the operation of any industrial law, for the reason that it was a very harsh thing to say to an old man who bad been a competent, able workman, "Beforo you cam continue to work in oul^ employ you must go to your union and get a permit to work for a reduced rate of wages." and then call him an inefficient workman. To bow down to men in a union and ask to be allowed to work for a reduced wage was a dekreo of humiliation he did not think we

should subject our fathers to. The number of men and women over this age was so small that they would not bo a serious obstacle to the industrial world. There was a tendency in the

world to push out old men. There were hundreds of old men who could not get a day's work. They would fall m a greater degree on the State, and would become old age pensioners. They were being pushed out of the industrial world because they would not humiliate themselves to go before their union and ask to be allowed to work for less v.ages. A good deal had been said about the operation of the industrial law in regard to the railways. Mr. Bassett could not see the consistency

of every private employer being made ti pay a certain wage, while the Government were exempt from the law. Mr. Seddon said the Arbitration Act would interfere with the finances of the colony. To get over that difficulty, Mr. Bassett thought that no award given by the Arbitration Court and affecting Government servants should come into operation until the end of the financial year, so that the Premier could frame his Estimates accordingly. Mr. Seddon. had not given much consideration to employers, who did not get a day's notice. When an award was made at least three months' notice should be given. When a large increase in wages was made by the Court ib seriously disturbed the financial arrangements of private employers. Mr. Bassett then went on to point out what he thought was a grave inconsistency on the Government's part with regard to the labour laws. Sir j. G. Ward was asked whether it would not be possible to reduce the hours of engine-drivers, guards, and firemen from 54 to 48 hours a week, and he said it would cost £21,000 per annum. If the railways of the colony had been privately owned, the Government would have at once reduced the hours. It was not fair, said Mr. Bassett, to keep men on the plate for 54 hours a week, exposed to heat, cold, and vibration. If it was just that private employers should keep men for only 46 hours a week, it was unreasonable for the Government to ask its employes to work for 54 hours. With regard to the request that the wages of maintenance men should be increased, Sir J. G. Ward had said it would cost £50,000. Mr. Bassett thought that considering the men were exposed to all kinds of weather, the Gdvernmont could have met them half-way. The Government, having no opposition, could afford to be more generous to its employees than a private firm who had to compete with competition within and without the colony. Sir J. *>. Ward had also said it was impossible to recognise a man as an efficient worker before he reached tho age of 24 yeai-s. This was surely inconsistent, when a private employer had to regard a man as an efficient worker at 21 years of age. Sir J. G. Ward, in answer to a question as to paying their

employers fortnightly, said it would enormously increase the cost. This was very inconsistent, when private employers were compelled to pay fortnightly. At this stage Mr. Ba;-sctt sa.d he wished to speak on a number of other subjects, but as he would be addressing the electors in ether places, ho would there refer more fully to those subjects. Reports of his remarks would appear in the Press. QUESTIONS. A very large number of questions wore asked, and among the answers given were the following :— Any increase in the land tax must bo determined by the needs of th«> country. If the country needed it they could increase it. He believed in a progressive tax both for income and land, and was completely in accord with the present system. Theio was no parallel between the State parting with the land and private owners doing so. The position ot municipalities was much the same as the Government's. There could be no such thing as alienation of the publio estate even if land were parted with, as it contributed to the revenue by means of rates, and the only limit to the rates was what was fair. In regard to appearing before the Arbitration Court for, underpaying his employees, he was not singular in that respect. The award in his case was four months in operation before he knew it, as he had received no notice of it and several other employees were ir. the same position. The first he knew of the award was Mr. Allan Orr walking into his office and abruptly accusing him of being guilty of a breach of the Act. He had not even the courtesy tn bid him good day, and when he was told that he (Mr. Bassett) was not aware of the award, he poohpoohed the idea. He (Mr. Bassett) was prepared to abide by the award, and had done so. He did not think there was much fieehold land lying idlo except in the towns, which was to a great extent inevitable. He did not think there was much unoccupied land in the country except native lands, for which the Government was responsible. The leaseholders concern was simply that the Government held over his bead a threat that they meant to break faith with him.

There was no unearned increment under the 999 years' lease, for what use would it be to anybody at the end of that time. He was emphatically against land monopoly, and would never be a party to land being held in larg;> estates m.s in the Old Country. He believed in cutting up land in areas suitable to its duality. He believed the country would be immensely the gainer from No-license He believed in the cultivation of selfrelianco among workers, and thought it would bo no hardship for a man to contribute fi modicum of the premium for accident insurance, covering the whole 24 hours of the day. Ho thought it would be a fair thing for the Leader of the Opposition to have a salary larger than the present honorarium. Ministers drew travelling allowances even when travelling in ll>e interests of their party, and it seemed hard that the Leader of the Opoo-:.----tion should have to pay for the same out of his own pocket. He favoured the question of Bible rc-ading in schools being submitted to a referendum. He believed in the referendum in matters of national moment, but thought the initiative should lio with the House, at any rate for the present. , Ho would favour amendments in the labour laws in certain directions, as they were unjust in certain cases. though he admitted they tended in the right direction. In regard to incomes over £10,000 a year, it would inflict no hardship if the Government taxed them to.-.a point bejond which no more could ba acquired. > He did not favour rating on unimproved value in towns. Contractors should pay the current rate of wages once a fortnight, and should not be allowed to evade the Truck Act. He totally disagreed with compulsory preference to Unionists as undemocratic and unjust. On the motion of Mr. A. M. McLeod, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded Mr. Bassett for his able address. The usual compliment to the chair concluded the meeting.