Untitled

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10060, 11 June 1898, Page 6

The Minister for Lands in his speech at Riccarton boasted of his knowledge of certain portions of" the Scriptures, of which, to our mind, he made a rather coarse use. He may, therefore, understand the parallel when we say that the scene at the Theatre Royal last night reminded us of the slaying of the Philistine. Mr. Charles Lewis, as Mr. Booth remarked, is but a political youngster. When it was announced that he was to take up the cudgels against the Minister of Lands a snort of contempt came up from the M'Kenzie camp, and we were told in effect that it was an insult to the Minister to set up such a stripling against him. " And " when the Philistine looked about " and saw David, —thus runs the grand old narrative, so stirring in its simplicity—"he disdained " him, for he was but a youth, " and ruddy and of a fair counten- " ance." And, as is the way with Philistines, he swaggered and strutted about, and made use of very violent and boastful language. But after all he was no match for the stripling with his sling and his five smooth stones of the brook ; he sank to the earth vanquished and put to shame, and there was an end of his boasting.

Nothing could have been more effective than the reply which Mr. Chakles Lewis delivered last night at such short notice to the Hon. J. M'Kenzie's Biccarton speech. Point after point was made with unerring certainty. Not only did he amply vindicate the correctness of Mr Kolleston's original statements as opposed to Mr. M'Kenzie's denials, but he carried the war into the enemy's camp. We do not remember hearing a more telling exposure of the weak points in the administration of the Minister for Lands. It was the more effective because Mr Lewis used no heated invee. tive, but merely selected! the " smooth stones " of undeniable fact, and sent them home with unerring aim. We do not venture to assert that we shall hear no more of Mr. M'Kenzie's boasting about his land policy. A French commander once complained that it was not sufficient to kill the English, you must knock them down. Even knocking down is not always effective in the case of a Highlander of Mr. M'Kenzie's temperament, and probably he will continue to boast and blaster and misrepresent things as of yore. The public, however, now have the facts before them, and will know

in fafcure how to estimate justly both Mr. M'Keszie's boasting and his misrepresentations. We have already dealt with some features of Mr. M'Kenzie's speech. It is worth while, however; to summarise briefly some of the fresh points made by Mr. Lewis. In regard to the Parliamentary Buildings soandal, Mr. M'Kenzie said that £7000 was all that could be expended up to the 31st March last, the end of the financial year, and that the plaus for the £40,000 building were approved by a committee of the House. Mr. Lewis showed that only five days before the House rose the Chairman of the Library Committee, speaking upon those very plans, stated the architect's calculation was that £7000 would erect and complete the building. There is no doubt whatever that Ministers led the House to believe that that sum would be sufficient, and that the £10,000 extravagance has been embarked upon by the Government without any authority, entirely on their own responsibility. Then, as Mr. Lewis warmed to his work, there followed hit after hit, each of the most palpable description. Mr M'Kenzie claims the right to revile the Judges (always under the shelter of parliamentary privilege) whenever they give a decision against him in any case in which he is concerned as a Minister of the Crown. Not content with " admonishing " them, as he calls it, he sets their decrees at defiance whenever he can. This is his idea of " maintaining the laws of the country," according to the oath which he took as a Minister of the Crown. Mr. Lewis showed that a Minister has no right to attack a judge unless he is prepared to move for his dismissal from office. Mr M'Kenzie is, therefore, on the horns of this dilemma: Either he has made charges of misconduct against Judges which he knows to be untrue; or else, in failing to move for their removal, he is false to the oath which he took to maintain the laws of the land. Mr M'Kenzie said it was untrue, as stated by Mr Kolleston, thathe had made the Advances to Settlers' Board a political Board by putting off the Solicitor-General and v putting himself on. He said the Solicitor-General w.as never a member of the Board. Mr. Lewis showed that by the Act of 1894, brought in by the Government, the Solicitor-General was made a member of the Board, and that by the amending Act of 1895, also brought in by the Government; the Solicitor-General was removed and the Minister for Lands was put on the Board. Mr. M'Kenzie brought out once more the antiquated "gridiron" and flourished it before his Ricoarton audience. Mr. Lewis showed that the regulations which made gridironing possible were introduced by the greatest " Liberal " New Zealand had ever known—Sir George Geey — and abolished by " that arch - Tory, William 80lLESTON."

But we have not space to refer to one-half of the telling points brought out by the senior member for Christchurch. Wβ earnestly advise our readers, however, to study what he said on the subjeot of Mr. M'Kenzie's land administration and the labour legislation of the Government. In regard to the former, he gave Mr. M'Eenzie every credit for sincerity in a desire to promote land settlement, but he showed how terribly disappointing were the results which had been achieved. Mr. M'Kenzie talks largely of the number of persons he has put upon the land. Mr. Lewis shows that even the number of new settlers added annually is not so large as it was under the Atkinson administration, and that there is an appalling " recessional" of persons who are going off the land sadder and poorer men. During the last two years there have been no fewer than 2046 forfeitures and surrenders by Crown selectors, and in the three classes of settlement on which Mr. M'Kenzie specially prides himself, the number of forfeitures and' surrenders has actually, exceeded the number of new tenants !

Equally effective was Mr. Lewis's exposure of the insincerity of the Ministry in refusing to allow workmen in the Government departments to avail themselves of the labour laws which they passed to bind private employers. Altogether, last night's meeting will add considerably to Mr. Lewis's reputation es a rising public man. The hearty and unanimous vote of appreciation and confidence which was carried, was doubtless gratifying to him, but still more so must have been the enthusiastic cheers with which the name of Mr. Rolleston was received by the audience. That in itself was con-, vincingproof that the main object of the meeting—to vindicate one of our most honoured public men from a cowardly and unwarranted attack—had been amply achieved.