NATIONAL CABINET

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2527, 30 July 1915, Page 6

NATIONAL CABINET

QUESTION REVIVED ANOTHER CONFERENCE IN PROSPECT SIR JOSEPH WARD WRITES ANOTHER LETTER Yesterday morning everybody supposed that the last had been heard 1 ot tho National Cabinet scheme, but the subject has been revived again, chiefly, it is understood, at tho express wish of His Excellency the Governor. Mr. Massey stated in the House yesterday that an important conference, arising, presumably, out of tho action taken by tho Governor, would bo held to-day. It is now certain that tho conference will not be held before Monday. Tho proposal is that the rival party leaders, with two other representatives of their parties, shall confer,, and that His Excellency will be present .to use liis endeavours to remove the obstacles in tho way of a settlement.

Sir Joseph Ward has returned to the controversial arena, however, by publishing a letter in reply to Mr. Massey's last word of the night previous. This letter was forwarded to the Prime Minister shortly before 11 o'clock last night, and lie had remained in tho precincts of the building then for some time longer than he had intended in order to receivc it. THE CASE ARCUED AOAIN. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S LETTER. Following is Sir Joseph Ward's letter: — Dear Mr.. Massey,—l bog to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, which was handed to nie at midnight, too late for an earlier reply. I do not for a moment question the sincerity of your desire to arrange for a strong, capable Government to carry 911 tho business' of tho with as little party friction as possible during tho crisis, through which the Empire is now passing. I and those associated with me have been equally desirous of attaining that object, and I am sure we may tako the disinterested patriotism of both parties for granted. In reference to your statement that there was no substantial body of public opinion suggesting a larger representation for the Opposition than three members in a National Cabinet of nine mein-' bers, I would remind you that you yourself recognised the inadequacy of this representation by substituting the one contained in your letter of the 27th instant. I am not aware that the alteration was made as the result of any expression, of public opinion that could be ascertained by either of us. If j'our idea is that the ratio of representation should be based npon an expression,of public opinion, I would point out'that this process might easily tend to defeat tho very object you havo in view.

Sacrifices to be Made. You speak of the great sacrifices that would havo been imposed upon several of your colleagues by the accoptanco of your first proposal. Necessarily, sacrifices, must be made on both sides if a Cabinet is to be reconstructed on nonparty lilies for' the public good, but apparently ■ you have overlooked the fact that ' I and those associated with mo would have had to make sacrifices at least as great as those demanded of your • colleagues. We were prepared to subordinate ourselves to tlio welfare of New Zealand and of tlio Empire, and I should be sorry to think that you and your colleagues approached the situation in a. less earnest spirit.

Strength of Parties. I regret I cannot agree with tho view you express in that portion of your letter dealing with the numerical strength of tho two parties in the Houso nor with the deductions you draw from your premises. Tho effective voting streiigth of the Government Party gives it a majority of one, and to attempt now to differentiate between the Liberal members and the Labour members comprising tho Opposition, while in your previous letter you treated the Opposition, and rightly so, as one body, cannot help to elucidate tho position or to servo any other useful purpose. It is obvious that 110 Government/.holding offico with such a slender majority could liopo to administer the affairs of tho country with confidence and efficiency in such a time as this without the. as-' sistance of the Opposition, and it is with a frank desire to give your Government this assistance I and those associated with mo have considered your various proposals. lou say that you were given to understand "that there was a very largo proportion of the Opposition members who would not -under any circumstances consent to support a National Government." I can only reply that you have 'been misinformed. Rumours of this kind alO scarcely worth discussing, but I can say with equal truth that I also was given to -understand that there was a considerable number of members on your sido of the House unfavourable to the establishment of a National Cabinet. Only the 'future ivould have shown Whether the good sense of members Holding views opposed to a National Cabinet would have induced them to placo the country's interests before their personal preferences.

. A Point of Disagreement. You go on to say: "I think I am right in saying that the next suggestion came from yourself. It was that there should be an equal number of European members on each sido : and that I as Prime Minister should possess a deliberative and a casting vote. This I accepted upon the understanding that tlio member of the Executive representing the Native Tace should be. requested not-to exercise a vote except 011 matters directly afl'cctiug his people." A littlo further on you say: "But when we met again you withdrew this offer." This statement you evidently mako under a misapprehension of what actually occurred. ' It is quite correct that you discussed a proposal upon those linos with me. It was not my suggestion. You informed me that you thought it tho furthest your party would go.. I expressed tho opinion tliat the Opposition would liofc accept the proposal, but I -undertook to-submit it to some of the leading members of the party. This I did, and subsequently informed you that there was 110 probability of tho proposal being accepted. There was 110 withdrawal 011 my part, because there- was nothing for me to withdraw, and as far as I was concerned the reply to your last proposal' was embodied in my letter to you of August 28. I made it- clear to you from the beginning of tho negotiations tliat I could, not make any definite proposal nor accept any proposal without first consulting the members of the Opposi-

The War Portfolios, With reference to the paragraph of your letter referring.to the portfolios of Finance, Defence, and Railways, I may remind you that the gentleman who stands next to yourself in the Cabinet holds the portfolios of Financo and Defence. The Minister of Railways stands third in order. The question of salary, in my view, has no bearing at all upon the point, and I have never given it tho slightest consideration. 1 • think you will agree witli mo that it would be absurd to measure'the importance of a portfolio by tho amount of smlnry nttnvli* cd to it »t a time when wo

riiore consequence. Apart from this, however, tjie proposal lor a National Cabinet originated in the desire that tho Government should he strengthened at a time when a great iiational call was beTng made upon its services. Tho demand centred _ a round Defence administration and tho provision of money for carrying on the war and meeting the financial exigencies arising out of it. It would bo of little service to ,tho country for tho Opposition, through nie, to agree to join a National Cabinet, and its representatives to be allotted |x>rl> folios having no direct connection wifii these departments. Your statement regarding the representation of tho Government or the Opposition in relation to their numerical strength in the Lower House does not correctly represent the position, as it is well known that the policy of every Government is formulated in the Cabwhere the full representation of ih'o members of the Ministry of both Chambers is, of course, available.

State of the Finances, I notice that you question niy statement as to tho serious condition of the finances of tho Dominion. I. am very glad to have your assurance that tlicro is no ground for misgivings on this point, but tho information available to the Opposition and tho public discloses a position which, in my judgment, demands tho most serious consideration from tlioso responsible for the administration of the affairs of the country. It is not presumptuous oil the part of the Opposition, I think, to belicvo that its representatives might give you useful assistance in this respect. Possibility of Deadlock. Your suggestion that equality of representation would produce a deadlock implies that such a contingency would be overcome by a majority of lleform Ministers in the Cabinet. It seems to me that this arrangement would produce a condition of affairs, even moro deplorable than a deadlock, and I cannot help expressing tho opinion that if a deadlock did arise it would bo better dealt with by a mutual exchange of : views than by the dominance of a single party. \our roferenco to tho constitution of the British National Cabinet is' scarcely relevant to the position, here, seeing that prior to its formation the Liberal Government had a majority of over oiio hundred votes in tlie Houso of Commons, and that the British National Cabinet has to deal with great Imperial issues which cannot be touched by our own Parliament. I am fully conscious of the needs of tho country at tho present time, and of tho grave responsibility that rests upon myself and the other members of. the Opposition. I already have indicated to you the direction in - which our services might be advantageously employed, and I ■ wish again to assure you that we should regard no sacrifico and no effort that can bo reasonably demanded from us too groat to make for tho promotion of the common, weal 'of New Zealand and* tho Empire in the present great national crisis. , I remain, i Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) J. G. WARD. Tho Eight Hon. W. F. Massey, P. 0., Prime Minister, Parliament House v Wellington.

MR. MASSEY'S COMMENT. LITTLE DEMANDING 'REPLY. The Prime Minister was seen by a Dominion reporter at 11 o'clock last night. He said that he had just received the letter, and had only glanced oyer it hastily. Asked whether he wished to reply to it, he made a short statement.' "It seems to me," 110 6aid, "that there is not very much in the letter to which I need reply, excopt tlio statement that 1 attempted to differentiate between the Liberal members and the Labour members of the present Opposition. As a matter of fact, I did nothing of tlio sort, although it is well known that the Liberal party consists of 33 members, and that there are six Labour members, who do not belong to the Liberal party, but who aro supposed to be allied to it in opposition to the present Government.

"There is another paragraph in the letter which refers to a- difference of opinion between' Sir Joseph Ward and myself with regard to tho suggestion that there should he an equal number of European members on each side, and that I as Prime Minister should have a deliberative and a casting vote. • The Loader of tlie Opposition says-that the suggestion came from me. lam equally certain that the suggestion camo from liiin, and Isitpposo tho matter will rest there. ' , "I do- not intend to deal with the letter in detail. It is not nccfessary tliat I should do so. I hope, however, that whatever happens, both parties, every member of the House, will for tho present session at all events drop all political differences, and refrain from- any attempts to make party capital tho one against the other, 'and tliat each and everyone will do his best in this'time.of national trial, for the Empire to which wo belong, and for the country, in which wo live." . s. ' ■