The Press Thursday, September 17, 1925. Local Needs and Party Politics.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18489, 17 September 1925, Page 8

The Press Thursday, September 17, 1925. Local Needs and Party Politics.

In "his address at yesterday's meeting of the Progress League the chairman, ; Mr Blackwell, asked the meeting to strengthen the hand of the League executive in dealing with the railway improvements required by Canterbury,, and to give approval to "its policy "of adopting a firm stand." Since we approve of a firm stand in defence of Canterbury's interests, and of a vigorous agitation for the satisfaction of Canterbury needs, we are very far from disagreement with the meeting's response to the chairman's appeal. The appeal was made, of course, as a result of our criticism of the League's unguarded approval of some imprudent and unjustified imputations against the Government. But Mr Blackwell did not ask for approval of what we criticised, and he abstained, very wisely and very properly, from repeating these imputations. He put the case for Canterbury, and expressed Canterbury's grievance, in terms to which not much exception need be taken —in the terms, indeed, to which the League executive might with advantage have reduced the reports which we reproved. In those reports it was insinuated that the Government was guilty of bad faith, mendacity, and a crooked determination to sacrifice Canterbury to Auckland; indeed, they contained, in a slightly watered form, some of the stuff used by local Liberals in their last struggle "against extinction. None of this, we are glad to see, was repeated by the chairman; his hard words were kept for "salaried "officers of the Government." This, of course, does not expose the League to the imputation that it is playing the game of a political party, but it seems to us to be right to suggest that these officers, who were responsible for a very absurd comparison between Northern and Southern railways, were not acting as "partisans" and " spe"cial pleaders." We ourselves, who were the first to notice the matter, ascribed their absurd calculations to an erroneous, imperfect, and shortsighted way of looking at the position, and we were able to justify our criticism. Surely nothing is to be gained by imagining an " objectionable" "partisanship" in these officers which can not be proved. We mention this matter because it bears upon the central point of our recent disagreement with the League, which was this: that there is a right way and a wrong way of criticising what one dislikes, a foolish way and a way that is not foolish, a prudent way and an imprudent way. It is perfectly true that Canterbury has " nothing-to " lose," as the chairman of the League says, "by taking a firm and deter- " mined stand," and that it cannot gain anything "if discussion of injustices is to be stifled." But Canterbury has nothing to gain, and the Progress League has much to lose —it has its life to lose—by confusing " a "firm stand" with the stand which is taken by the avowed enemies of the Government, and by regarding as "the stifling of discussion" an admonition to keep discussion fair, temperate, and judicious. We have received from Blenheim, and print today, a letter in which a- correspondent indicates the form which "an earnest "protest" against Government action ought to take. The- executive and members of the League may usefully reflect upon this letter. The writer" urges- that the South Island constituencies should return opponents of the Government to Parliament " as an "earnest protest." This is what the Liberals and the Reds are saying, and what the Progress League can say or encourage others to say if it chooses to' do so. It went rather near to saying it the other day, but we may assume from the general tone of yesterday's meeting that it has prcjfited from our warning that its work will be more effective if it avoids partisan polemic, which it can easily do without surrendering its duty of working for the satisfaction of Canterbury's legitimate needs.