POLITICAL PIT-DIGGING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1201, 9 August 1911, Page 7

POLITICAL PIT-DIGGING.

THE OPPOSITION'S MEMORABLE EEFORMS. ' [To the Editor.l Sir,—The parable abont the man who dug a pit for another, and yet fell into it ..himself, ssems to be eternally applicable. , A noteworthy instance, of this was given at the meeting of that worthy man, Mr. W. H. Field,.at Levin, on Monday night, .wHon . the Acting-Premier, Sir James .Cfifroll, played the oracle to this exhilarating tune: "1 am prepared to contrast the conduct, manner, and behaviour of the Progressive Liberal party at any time with (thai: of?) the Opposition party. We -never-abuse them; we never-say anything beyond the. legitimate border of-criticism;-we do not seek to employ their methods."-

However, in direct opposition to these (ofty sentiments and valorous words, the estimablo Mr. Field, in emulation of th« i immortal Bottom, "roared you as gently as a sucking dove." to this effect: "The'outstanding features of the Opposition's policy were inaccuracy, unfairness, and mud-slinging, but its real policy was this: to repeal all the statutes that gave every ndult man and woman a vote, and. then to.take, one by one, the various beneficial Acts passed by the present Government since the year 1891. The Opposition ■ etrcnuously fonght all these Acts in every possible way, and he was cO'nfident tliut the people of the country . would not hand over the administration of tho Liberal measures to such a party." Here, indeed, we sen a wide and yawning chasm between Sir James Carroll's description of his-party's conduct and that conduct itssrlf as exemplified in the personal abus* and the unveracious asseverations of Mr. W. H. Field, member for Otaki.. lii the first clause.of this gentleman's slaleiiieiit all that Sir James says about his party's exemplary conduct recojvos is direct denial; and the second clause exhibits as little regard for political history as the first tines for Sir Janies Carroll's model niaiihers; The third clause of the first senlpnce is—grammatically, rhetorically, and in every other "sound and fury, signifying nothing"—except the wild-eyed ignorance nf the would-be oracle. Then the barefaced hiitnricril inaccuracy of the second clause of the firrt sentence is equalled by that of the first clause of the lust, for the fighting done in that connection by the Opposition was all to the advantage of lh> proposals criticised by them. -Poor Sir James Carroll., and poor Mr: Wi. H. Field, and especially the Govern- ■ ment party as a party, and the knowledge of political history possessed by its members;.in a. \\'6rd, the atrocious audacity of Mr. Field, in telling his constituents, and as many, of his countrymen ,is read his rodomontade, that "the Opposition would repeal all the statutes that gave every adult man attd woman a vote." Verily, this beats Branigan, and Branigan beat tho devil. Why, it was thn Government of the Hon. John Hall (afterwards Sir John) who, in December, 1879, passed the Qualification of Electors Act, which gave a voto to eveT.v adult man who had lived one year in tho colony and six months in the district foT which he wished lo register; and. ten years later, another of the Fathers of the Democratic Opposition, Major Atkinson (afterwards Sir Flniry), legalised the Tirinciple of one-mnn-one vote! Then, Sir John Hall was the unwearied champion of woman suffrage, which was finally carried.by votes of inoinljpr* of the Opposition party, to tlio deep disappointment of Mr. Seddon, thr> demagogic idol of Mr. Field and his friend". And yet Mr. Field dares to say Hint "thfi Opposition's real policy is to repeal nil the statutes that gave every adult man and woman a vote!" Could ;\ statement more monstrous than this bo imul<-. <n'f>n by a follower of tha Government?—l am, etc., DEMOCRAT.