Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1919. THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 114, 11 November 1919, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1919. THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

After a very brief rest from the labours of the session, both political leaders faced the electors yesterday, and it may be expected that this equally laborious business will keep both of them going with but little, intermission until the numbers go up in about a month's time. Yesterday neither of them can be said to have made any substantial contribution to the enlightenment of the electors. Mr. Massey's effort, which was addressed to a private meeting of his supporters, was merely of tho nature of a preliminary canter. . He confined himself to generalities, of which the most striking was this definition of what he described as the most important issue: " Who is going to govern.tho country for the next three years? Is it to be the lawabiding, responsible, and patriotic elements?" he Risked, "or is it to be political extremists, a combination of Bolshevists, I.W.W.'s, Revolutionary Socialists, and others of theisame category'" The Prime Minister was, of course, not so foolish as to suggest that the followers of Sir Joseph Ward were to be found in any division of this category, nor did he suggest that revolutionary extremists could conceivably secure a majority at the General Election. He did, however, suggest that the result might be to give them the balance of power,'and he implied that in such a case he would bo better ablo to resist the temptation than Sir Joseph Ward. It is probable that many even of Sir Joseph Ward's admirers regard the period^ of indecision during which he was endeavouring to conciliate the Labour Party after the General' Election of 1911 as one of the least admirable parts of his career, but how Mr. Massey would comport himse-f under similar conditions has yet to ,be seen.

While Mr. Massey was making these general references to Hhe extremists at Auckland, some of them were giving Sir Joseph. Ward at Christchnrch a concrete illustration of their methods. They did not shout him down, but their interruptions at the beginning of the meeting were bad enough to call from the chairman a threat of "extreme measures " by way of reprisal, and at its close they appear to have succeeded in preventing the mover of a vote of thanks and\ confidence from getting a hearing. It is also probable that the disturbance prevented Sir Joseph Ward from making some of his intended points and marred the effect of others, but of one thing both tho speaker who suffers from this particular form of " direct action " and those who indulge in it may rest assured, and that is that the public sense of fair-play will see to it that it is not the victim of such tactics who is the ultimate sufferer. The Labour Party will therefore be consulting its own interests if it sets its face sternly against these performances, and not merely repudiates but suppresses them. The treatment given to the Independent Labour candidate in Dunedin South yesterday, and to Colonel Mitchell in Wellington South last week, shows that the performance of the Christchurch extremists is not an isolated instance. A party which encourages or even tolerates these performances is false to tho democracy which it professes. The essence of them is not the rule of the people but the despotism of a mob, and a people which values its freedom is not to be dragooned lin this fashion.

When Sir Joseph Ward declared that "the position of the country required careful handling,", and that he would not take office with those in whose views he did not believe, he said very much whai Mr. Massey had said a few hoars before at Auckland. Both leaders are equally convinced that the financial and general conditions are such as to demand exceptionally careful handling by a Government which can command a strong working majority. Each is quite sure that this ia the issue which the electors should regard as paramount, but each is equally sure that he alone can supply the treatment that the country needs. Is not, then, the issue to which both leaders attach supreme importance a purely personal one—a choice not between policies and principles, . but between leaders? And should the country be exposed to the grave risk, to which both leaders hava called attention, of entrusting revolutionary extremists with the balance of power merely on account of personal differences between leaders whose principles are substantially tho same? People who have been troubled by these questions during the last two or threo months will get no relief from tho utterances of either of the leaders yesterday. On tho contrary, they will Oe rather encouraged in tl.e belief that the supreme issue is not tho leaders' struggle for precedence, but the possibility Hint thalr mutual antflfsortism nut? glv* * disproportionate and danger-

ous prominence to the most undesirable element in our public life. If Mr. Massey or Sir Joseph Ward is able to show that their rivalry is based upon any difference of principle which is comparable in importance to this clear call to unity, he will have eased the perplexities of, many an embarrassed elector. •'