The Press. MONDAY; SEPTEMBER 1, 1913. SIR JOHN FINDLAY EMERGES.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14759, 1 September 1913, Page 6

The Press. MONDAY; SEPTEMBER 1, 1913. SIR JOHN FINDLAY EMERGES.

Sir John Findlay, who has lately been devoting once more to the law those great talents which seemed thrown away in politics, arid who was understood to have quitted the political arena for. ever, has been drawn from his retirement by seeing the welter of weakness and confusion into which the Liberal Party has drifted. He is contributing to the "New Zealand . Times" a series of article® entitled "Tho Fate of Liberal- .'*' isip." Ho does not seek to disguise liis conviction that tho Liberal Party is in a parlous state. Ho leads off in cheery stylo by remarking that "The Liberal Party presents to-day to ." every one of its friends a, spectacle " painfully diagnostic of its present "plight, and fatcfully prophetic of its "•future existence." This oracular remark is almost worthy of Captain Jack Buusby, but Sir John Findlay gets moro pointed and specific as he proceeds. To him " it is pitifully clear that "the principles of true liberty upon " which Liberalism has slowly been " built up are in danger of becoming " obscured or forgotten, and as a driving force are in danger of losing much "of their former power and influence." Then he goes on to point the moral that—' _f the Liberal Party is to sur**vivo it must no longer dwell in the * : valley of indecision, timidity, and opj*' portturisxa. It must display that

" measure of audacity and zeal, by " which alone it can travel far and wil"lingly along the difficult —it may be " tho hazardous —path of democratic "progress."' Again, "it must abandon " stale shibboleths and soporific plati- " tudes, arouse itself from its self-eom- '' placent reverie over past achieve- " ments, take the field, sword in hand, " and become again a living gospel sin"cerely held and fervently promoted." Far be it from us to find fault with Sir John Fiudiay's diagnosis. Whatever may be the cause, tho fact that tho so-called Liberal Party has fallen into a stato of complete debility and almost abject disorganisation is apparent to observers less closely in touch than Sir John Findlay with what is going on within its ranks. Wo naturally turn witli somo interest to see what, in his opinion, is the remedy sufficiently potent to put fresh life into this apparently moribund organism. We havo to confess that it is not particularly easy to find out exactly what Sir John is driving at. Ho is nothing if not academic.—and, we had almost said, verbose. So wo have to wade through a long dissertation on "tho historical •'evolution of Liberalism," from tho timo of the French Revolution downwards, in which, as the author frankly confesses, ho has freely drawn material from the moro prominent writers. There is a good deal in the nature of platform platitudes about liberty as the basis of Liberalism. There must be "Civil Liberty"—or freedom under Government; "Fiscal Liberty," "Por- " sonal Liberty," and "Social Liberty." Under tho fourth head wo are told, Liberalism "stands against class dis- " tinctions, social restrictions, heredi- " tary privileges, and all other impedi- " ments to the social liberty of tho "individual." This being so, one is more than ever puzzled how it was that during the Liberal regimo in New Zealand titles were accepted by Liberal Ministers with such avidity. However, when we come to examine into the matter a littlo more closely wo find that what is "liberty" for the Liberals is often the reverse of liberty for other people. When we leavo the platitudes and get as near to concrete facts as is possiblo in the umbrageous depths of Sir John Findiay*6 rhetorical jungle, we find him saying: "To translate " their doctrines into action Liberals "must not let their zeal ho chilled or "frozen by doubts, misgivings, and "difficulties. They must, for example, " approach the taxation of land values "not with a delicate glove of velvet, " but with spear and buckler, and with " determination in their hearts. They "must he in deadly earnest, not in "halting hesitation in "forcing the. sub- " division of the great estates which "now leave so many willing settlers " landless. They must handle monopo- " lies with a grasp of iron; and in deal"ing with these and many other " problems of equally urgent import"ance pay no heed to idle shouts of "sanctity of contract, confiscation, or "the bogey of stampeding capital." And so, when we get down to bedrock, it appears that the "Gospel" of Liberalism according to Findlay is the Gospel of Spoliation, which has been oxpressly disclaimed and, indeed, denounced, by Mr Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister of England. He said, the other day, as our readers will remember: —- . "I have never seen my way, sinco I had to do with these matters as a practical and responsible statesman, to any re-arrangement of our fiscal system which ought not and would not of necessity involve the imposition on all classes without any distinction—l am not speaking of those who are. below the poverty lines—rof something in the nature of proportionate contribution to our national expenditure. Ido not think there is any" doctrine moro fatal to the root principle of democratic government than that of tho constant amelioration, at great expense to the community, of these social conditions of the less-favonred classes in the country at the sole and exclusive expense, of other classes." Indeed it is evident that thero is littlo to choose between the programme of Sir John Findlay and that of the Red Feds, except that the latter say in plain English what they " want, whereas Sir John Findlay wraps up his views in a long string of fine-sounding'words. Mr Edward Tregear, recognising this at once, wroto to tho "New Zealand Times" to say that the points which Sir John Findlay speaks of as absolute necessities for the future conduct of Liberalism, aro already contained in the programme and principles of thd Social Democratic Party. "When the Liberals " adopt Sir John's bold policy," he added, "there will be no division or de- " marcation between them and tho "Social Democrats, so they might as " well join us straight away and get to " useful work in a strong organisation." Possibly; therefore, we may yet see Sir John Findlay in a red tie, having, we presume, abdicated his knighthood, and leading the Red Feds, in political battles. We have tho Hon-. G. Fowlds, whose interesting articles are appearing in "Tho Press," drawing the lino at Socialistic confiscation, where it affects shops and factories, but keen on "socialising" tho land by heaping on it taxation sufficient to absorb its full rental value. What part is to be assigned to Sir Joseph Ward in this political chance medley is not yet disclosed. One thing is certain, namely, that in Sir John Findlay's new Liberalism there is nothing new. It is simply tho Socialism of the Red Feds.—not tho Socialism which says: "How can I help my poorer brother?" but "How can I rob my richer brother of that which ho hath ?"