QUICKSANDS OF DEMOURA OV

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 74, 25 September 1900, Page 2

Q UICKSANDS OF DEMO URA O V

The Clyde- quay branch of the Liberal and Labour federation held a public meeting in the Foresters' Hall, Torystreet, last evening. Mr. Stratford was in the chair, and addresses 'were delivered by Messrs. Millar, Napier, and Arnold, M.H.R.'s. Mr. Millar's address dealt with the progress of legislation in New Zealand. Before making any legislative move, we must look back and see what the result of past legislation had been. -It was possible to make mistakes, even when guided by the results of the efforts of past legislators, but without such a guide it would be more than human not to make mistakes. The people of the colony were, he considered, more contented now than they had ever been before in the history of tho colony, and the Government intended to continue this contentment. He expressed surprise at tho apathy shown by the women of the colony with regard to the legislation of the day. Ninetenths of the legislation was purely social, and therefore concerned the women very closely. Ifc was not necessary for women to be always moving in public, but a woman might, in her own way, do more than many a man could do. He believed that New Zealand, under liberal legislation, would become the grandest country on earth, Mr. Nanier spoke on "The Quicksands

of Democracy." He referred lo the danger of becoming reckless through M:hc enjoyment of a long and unbrokon career of success. He believed the Liberal Party in New Zealand would have as long a career as that of Canada, which remained in power for twenty yeara, but they must guai-d against recklessness. Tolerance was the best policy, and democracy might become intollerant. Another danger was class legislation. All legislation musfc ne cessaruy affect a certain class, but when democracy had achieved a full measure of success it must not go to extremes and become guilty of class legisiation, but must remember its principles. Another pitfall, which threatened to trip up the present democratic party was the growing indisposition of legislators to submit proposed measuros to proper tests. Every liberal law should breathe a spirit of liberalism, and legislators who did not tesb measures in this respect were not Liberals. Some clauses of the Public Health Act, he considered, dealt deadly blows to public liberty, and some of the liberal provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act were, by them, over-ridden. The next thin place in the democratic ice to be avoided was the curtailment of the privileges and power of Parliament. The Executive dominated the Parliament. Six of the 74 members were selected, and when so selected had to be kept in power. When any unwelcome measure was going forward, those six raised the bogey that if this was passed their position would be endangered, and the other Party might come into power. Under this system changes and amendments could not be effected. Ministers might give way in Committee and allow amendments to be made, but if they put their foot down, their followers would come in and block the proposal. It was an oligarchy— the government of the people by six men, and representatives were forced into accepting laws which they would prefer to reject. Ministers should be merely a Committee to carry out tho wishes of members. The next abuse to be guarded against "was the placing of incompetent men in positions of power. Democracy should select the best men, and pay them good salaries^ He considered the abolition of the jury system would be a mistake; it had practically been the bulwark of British freedom. He had heard a prominent Liberal advocating the lengthening of the term of Parliament, but if there was anything upon which we staked our existence it was the triennial PaivHament. A reversion to four or five year Parliaments would be the knell of social liberty in New Zealand. Mr. Arnold spoke of the old days when the Conservative Party was in power in New Zealand. The present Conservative Party was, he said, Liberal in comparison with that of twenty years ago. H<? considered legislation had made great progress. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act was a timely democratic measure. Legis^tion -which guarded against strikes was in the interests of employers as well as workers. He mentioned, also, in the same connection, the Fuclorifts Act, the Public Health Aofc, and the Land Laws, showing how they were for tho good of the whole community. Concluding, he said that employers must not think that legislation for the benefit- of employees 1 was necessarily to their hurt, and vice versa— individuality must be sunk and all olasses must work hand in hand. With a vote of thanks to the three speakers, the meeting concluded.