NEW ZEALAND LEGION.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20909, 17 July 1933, Page 7

NEW ZEALAND LEGION.

TO TUT. EDITOK OT TH"B PBBSS. Sir,—"Machiavelli" is quite evidently twin-brother to the traditional English politician who, getting worsted in argument, exclaimed to his opponent: "No, I won't believe that until you convince me of it—and I'm d— if I'll be convinced." Still, his letter suggests some matters about which the less prejudiced public might like to learn something, so I proceed to deal with it. The legion has nothing to obscure or hide. All is open and above-board. "Machiavelli" may continue to put his posers, and they will be answered with simple brevity. That rather spoils the game of posers. "Machiavelli" has settled it that the legion is the creation of ambitious personalities in New Zealand, thirsty for power to be devoted to their selfish personal interests. I congratulate my critic on being the first to make the discovery and condole with him on the fact that the public, knowing well the character and record of the legion leaders, will pronounce it to be another mare's nest. It is not worth discussing. He asks these gentlemen to produce their credentials. Take six of them and put them against the six best men in Parliament, and for ability, integrity, business acumen, and all the qualtiesthat count, you will find the legion leaders facile principes. And there remains this to be said. There is not one of them who is anxious to enter Parliament. The hungry careerists are found in the present parties, and we know what they have made of Parliament and the country. Let us get away from the idiotic notion that Parliamentarinnism is an exact science demanding any special abilities. If it were, our party Parliament would be incontinently dismissed as hopelessly incapable.

"Machiavelli" should furbish up his logic. He tells us the party system is caused by clashing class interests. Does that justify it? Does it not rather justify the legion's contention that government of the whole people cannot be equitably conducted by the party system, which gives alternate parties, representing some of these class interests, the power to dominate for a time? In a community of the butcher and baker and candlestickmaker, it is utterly unfair to allow one of them to dominate the other two. That is what the party system docs in a political sense. And again, an appreciation of simple logic would find "Machiavelli" (who advocates co-operation) in the ranks of the legion; for co-operation between all classes and interests to meet a common crisis is the very keynote of the legion's purpose. I would advise my critic to give a little time to the sorting out of his rather mixed ideas on this matter.

There is absolutely no secrecy about the legion meetings. They are public and open to all. The first meeting in Christchurch was regulated by admission tickets to prevent overflowing. That measure was justified, for the ticket holders filled the hall. All other meetings have been open to the public, and they will continue to be open. The purpose of the legion. is to secure for this country a Parliament of able men, free from the passions and predilections of party thraldom, to conduct the public business on business lines for the benefit of every class and every interest in the Dominion without fear or favour; and that is more than can ever be done in a Parliament ridden by the party system.—Yours, etc., LEGIONARY. July 15, 1933.