'NOTHING MUCH TO REPLY TO'

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 69, 15 December 1919, Page 12

'NOTHING MUCH TO REPLY TO'

SIR JAMES ALLE': ANSWERS Sili JOSEPH WAKD By Telegraph—l'rean Association. Christchurch, December 11. In tho presence of' a large and cntliiifiastc aUeiidiince at Sont last night, Sir James Allen replied at length to a, speech made by Sir Joseph U'urd at Leeston on Friday week. Colonel H bodes was anions those present. Sir James Alien said he was there at tile rer.ucst of the I'nnie Minister to reply to Sir Joseph Ward, though there was nothing mncli to reply to. lie was also there to say what lie could 011 behalf of his friend Colonel Kliodes. A voice: Ho doesn't want it, six. lMerring In Sir Joseph "Ward's speech at Leeston Sir Jatucs Allen said lie was nit going lo say anything unkind about Sir Joseph Ward. How could I 10? (lAuyhter.) Sir Joseph Ward had been working with him for fivo years and should be still. Accoiding to his remarks Sir Joseph Ward was largely in agreement with Mr. Massey, and it was considered, in view of tho problems 1 rising out of war, the two 'parties plii'iild combine. There was practically 110 d (Terence between them. Sir .Tames Allen went on to deal with the land question and tho provision made for district land purchase boards- The boards were leing constituted and there should be a rapid advance in land settlement all over the Dominion. He questioned -whether the purchase system was leading to the infiatiou of land values. He considered that the ltgii prices were duo to {he prices being secured for commodities. Sir Joseph Ward had referred to the oi'.estion of housing. He criticised Sir Joseph "Ward's scheme for utilising the I'cst Office Savings Dank deposits for the election of dwell : Jigs. He said no such mcnev was available. He gave tlmt nssuranee as Minister of Pimiuee. The reason was that the money was being used for other purposes—the purposes for which it had always been used.

in repnrd to trai'.'inj; camps Sir James Allen said his scheme was merely a tfuggestion—it had not won b.»en considered by Cabinet. Tt would be unw.'se to cut out our training scheme, as tho League of Nations might fail. Referring to Sir Joseph Ward's proposal for tho nationalisation of the coalfields, Sir James Allen said the Government wfre entirely in favour of the State entering into competition with private individuals and companies. lie was in favour of it., as he believed the State should control prices and set an example to other employers in regard to tho condition of employees. (Applause-) Sir Joseph Ward had said that the nationalisation of the coal mines would stop strikes and tho go-slow policy, but there had .been strikes in the State mines. The miners had struck against the Military Servico Act and also because some of their members would not pay the levy for the Australian miners and had imposed disabilities upon tho whale of the Dominion. There was no necessity to go slow, and the suggestion that nationalisation would end strikes and the go e!<v>* policy was pur? camouflage. He refuted Sir Joseph Ward's statements that nationalisation would result in clipper coal and large profits .to- the State.

In regard, to a State bank he pointed out the danger of a largo '■issue of paper money. If Sir Joseph Ward had been corieetly reported when ho suggested the issue of paper money for financing the railway:! of the country they did not want him as Minister of Finance. Sir James Allen said that when he took over the portfolio of Finance after the dissolution of th.e National Government tho country was faced with a 1 deficit of two million?. What chance, was there therefore of his reducing taxation? I'rompt steps had been taken to c-ope with the situation, and he could say Hint at the end nf March next the revenue would more than meet the expenditure. He criticised Sir Joseph Ward over the gratuities question, and said the only interpretation ho could place upon Sir Joseph Ward's action was that it was n Mho to try and secure tho soldiers' vote. There was no real difference so far as he could gather between tho Reform and Liberal parties. He knew of _ nothing which should keep the two parties apart except t!w personal ambition—should he say—of two men. Shoukl he say Masfey' 110 did not think this latter contention would bear water. Ho pointed out that Mr. Massev. being the leader of a" party of 41 members in the House, the party in the majority naturally had first claim to the Prime Ministership. The other leader in the House, Sir Joseph Ward, had a following of .11 members. Was there any reason why Sir ■Tcw-nh Ward should not have made a sacrifice like every soldier who had gone to the front? Was there any reason why he could not have joined hands with Mr. Massoy the same as during the war? He felt certain that Mr. Ma«ev would be returned as head of a majority of the House. If 110 party were returned with n majority the extreme Labour section would attenmt 'to control either the Reforme"* or Liberals. Mr. Massey had definitely said ho would not be so controlled. and he thought Sir Joseph Ward h;«l ca->l the same, but if Sir Josenli Ward woto to defeat Mr. Massey with the aid of La hour he could not maintain office after without their aid. Whether he was going to accent that tho speaker was not going to say. but if not the country would bo f,aec<l with the prospect of another election or tho Reform and Liberal parties joining together, and tlie-ii we would be faccd again w'ith the same difficulty—two men—one Mr. Mnstsev, recognised as the leader, and the other—Sir Joseph Ward—■wanting to be leader.

After references to Hie fifteen millions surplus -oiid Nauru Island Sir James Allen said a scheme providing for aerial defence and commercial work wit'eh would not cost much was boinj* presented to Cabinet. Sir .Tanies Allen, who concluded with a reference to industrial unrest, was accorded H vote 'of thanks for his address, followed by enthusiastic cheers for him .nil Colonel Ehodes oH tli" pippin" of "For They are Jolly Good Fellows,"