NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1282, 10 November 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The brief note in our editorial columns yesterday expressive of our amusement ;it the funny embarrassment into which our evening contemporary's sort of "independence" leads it has provoked a long and excited stream of abuse by way of reply. "Discreditable tactics," "misrepresentation," "bolstering up," "want of intelligence," "grotesque and hot-headed tactics," hostility to "the general good," "dishonour," "discredit"—these are some of the expressions by means of which our contemporary relieves its ruffled feelings. It sounds very much like Silt Joseph AVard. Bowing our heads to the storm, and meekly suggesting that our policy has done us a deal of good, we merely wish to direct attention to tho fact that our contemporary has not attempted to explain its support of Mr. Field, tho "freeholder" follower of tho party that the Post regards as politically "treacherous," "incapable," "untrustworthy," and "cowardly," with its support of Mr. Fletcher, tho leasehold supporter of the same party. Our contemporary, in its own choice fashion, screams at us bccause The Dominion supports Messrs. Fisher and Wright, who arc.leaseholder:!, and wants them to win. We have only to say that the paramount need of the time still is to throw out the Government, just as it was in 190S, according to the I'oxl itself. Wc oppose Mr. Wright and Mr. Fisher, and also Mr. Massf.v, on some considerable issues, but they are with us in their conviction that the country, the society of today, and the interests of our children, need above all things the destruction of the Government. Every honest man who will fight for that will have our support. Every other issue fades into insignificance before this issue—the destruction of a corrupt Government that is making posterity's interests a pawn in its selfish game. That is our belief— that was the belief of the Post- in 190S, when it said: —

Tho Government represents the last feeble dregs of an admirable tradition. The custom of power continued through so many years has debilitated its principles and dwarfed its conscience. . . . Ministerial cowardice has all but wrecked the industrial conciliation and arbitration system. . . . Ministerial incapacity is shown by such sinks cf the geneval rev. enue as the Seddonvillc State coal mine.

. , . Ministerial treachery to legislative ideals is shown by the fashion in which the Second Ballot Act was passed on n pretence of electoral reform. . . . \V|i o other than a sharer of tho spoil con in these circumstances bo expected tn vote for the Gfu'crument party as a party?

What have the days brought since then I Only further abuses, further treachery, further selfishness, further furllier folly on the pari of, (lie Government—abuses, treacheries, selfishnesses, cowardircs, follies that our contemporary baa condemned as they came. And yet Ihc I'n/t, wobbles, and it shrilly resents the laughter which its amusing attempts to reconcile its inconsistencies provoke.

Jilt. M'Nah appears to have bad a very good meeting at Palmersfoil North 011 Wednesday evening, hut docs not seem to have broken any new ground. He is a good party man, and announced his determination to stand or fall with the (. lovcniment—a striking contrast to the altitude of so many of the candidates who arc sailing under the colours of "Liberalism." It is a little amusing to notu Sin. M'N.ui's professions on the land question when one recalls what happened after his valorous declaration us a Minister of the Crown that he had nailed his colours to the mast and would stick lo the Bill then before Parliament. Still these things arc soon forgotten in politics, and no doubt there are many people who, reading Mil. M'Nab's speech, will regard it as the utterance of a strong man, and one who. after making up his mind sticks to it. Mr. M'Nab has many estimable qualities, but he is not by any means a strong man, judged by his political past, and as a member of the Government party would exercisc comparatively little influence. It is pleasant to note that ho and his opponent, that good sportsman Mr. D. Buick, have entered on their contest on the best of terms personally, and that a clean though strenuous fight may be anticipated.

The somewhat tiresome scolding of his opponents which is becoming habitual with Sin Joseph Ward is dealt with in very plain language by the Christclnirch Press in reviewing the Prime Minister's Winton spcech. Our contemporary opened its comments on the speech with the following paragraph: —

It is very much to lie resetted that the speech deliverw! by Sir Joseph Ward at Wiuton last night, which ought to liavo been a statesmanlike enunciation of tho Government's policy, in view of the coming general election, consisted to a very largo extent of on angry scream of resentment against his opponents in tho House. Since Sir' Joseph Ward's return from England he has resented tho slightest criticism of his administration or his policy, and has been for ever harping on what lie is pleased to call the "abuse" and the "misrepresentation" of his critics. Either ho is suffering from some species of hallucination on this subject, or else he really believes that it is a form of "lose majeste" for any person in this country to criticise or oven question anything which so exalted a person as its Prime Minister may choose to say or do. Not content with inventing amendments in the law of defamation, imposing restrictions on freedom of speech such as exist in no other part of the British Empire, ho and his satellites are for' ever trying to stifle reasonable criticism by incessantly crying out that they are being misrepresented and abused. Bluffing of this kind may be carried too far, and the people of Now Zealand are already beginning to suspect that a Government which shows such strong repugnance to the searchlight of the Opposition being directed upon its doings, is conscious of a good deal in its administration that will not bear close investigation.

Most people probably will agree with the conclusions of the Press. There is an aspect of the matter, however, which it has overlooked. The tactics pursued by Sir Joseph Ward are not by any means confined to the head of the Government. His colleagues and the members of the party generally are all doing the same thing, and it looks very much like a concerted plan of action. Still Sir Joseph Ward is no doubt the worst offender.

Mr. Fisiier opened his campaign for the Central seat last evening,' and, as is usual with him, attracted a large audience. He possesses a happy knack of getting to the heart of a matter, and is equally skilled in presenting it to his audience in a clear and forcible manner, oftentimes emphasised by some apt illustration. During the past three years Mr. Fisher has been able to do very real service to the country as a critic of the Ward Administration; and it is a tribute to his powers that they should have selected the strongest candidate they could secure in the city to oppose him. Last evening he made a number of points which must appeal to the public as affording further reasons wh.v the Ward Administration should be removed from office, and which should, incidentally, strengthen his own candidature. Mr. Fisiier, we believe. does not see eye to eyo with tho Reform party on all questions, but he is in harmony with the party on most of the vital issues, and is a downright opponent of the Government. Men of his qualifications are badly needed in Parliament just now.