Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1911. HOME AGAIN.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 49, 26 August 1911, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1911. HOME AGAIN.

The one serious mistake made in all the speeches at the welcome given to the Premier and the Attorney-Gonera-l in the saloon of the Ruapehtt last/ nitfhfc was the quite tmneceseary and inartistic shrillness of their tone. The occasion wa£ one of welcome on a return from an Imperial mission, which has been discharged to the general satisfaction of the people. The speakers were the three leading members of the Mihistry~-two of them being the returning missionaries and the third theit colleague who has taken charge during their absence. la these circumstances the proper note to «ound Wa« clearly on« of pewon&l and national Congratulation in which everybody could join} yet the predominant note last night was that of railing and recrimination. Even the genial and equable Sir James Carroll found it necessary to refer in contemptuous term* to the Premier's critics. "They distort and misrepresent everything you do," h© »aid, "everything yon utter, overy little movement" 5 and in his peroration Sir James Carroll called upon the Premier to spurn his enemies with his toe. Sir Joseph Ward hiHmelf had set th© example by denouncing the "extraordinary, malicious, and vicious stories " which had been circulated at his expense; and Sir John Findlay concluded in the same key by referring to "the carping, mean, and contemptible criticism which had decorated eoflie of the journals of this counlry," and suggesting that it was easy to be offensive to the absent. We can recall no home-coming which was co' seriously marred by a jawing note. Both at welcomes and at farewell* untoward and unexpected incidents arise occasionally, as Sir Joseph Ward knows, to disturb the official programme. In the present case, however, the distnrbaiftce was contributed by the official performers themselves. They all elected to be polemical and querulous, and have only themselves to blame if the result was to give a ceremony which should have been national in its universal appeal a quite inappropriate air of party pugnacity. If, however, the unfitness of the occa. sion and the unbecomingly high-pitched tone be excluded from consideration, we have nothing but praise for the substance of what both Ministers had to say. Without concurring in the extravagant reference of v Sir James Carroll to "the great and noble deeds" that the Premier and his colleague have acconv plished during their absence, their fel-low-colonists are well pleased with the manner in which they" acquitted them* selves at the Imperial Conference, and, in spite of what was said laet night, the general verdict is but little affected by party politics. But with regard to those titles the converse holds true. Both titles atfe strongly and widely dis» appTpved, and, whatever may be said in public, party politics can do little to qualify the extent of the disapproval. In these circumstances both the Premier and the Attorney-General have faced a difficult and invidious situation in the best possible way by facing it boldly, Though Sir Joseph Ward honoured the various canards which have been circulated at his expense with too strenuous a repudiation, he could not have dealt better with the title question. He had not solicited the honour, he declared, and he had not paid money for it. "The title was conferred upon me," he said, "without asking and without any recommendation through the ordinary channels. It ought to be regarded not merely as a personal honour, but as an honour conferred upon the country." This may not carry conviction, but it must at any rate be admitted to be well and manfully said. It is not the extent of th& personal honour, but tne fact that it is transmissible to descendants, that arouses the p\iblic resentment. That point Sir Joseph Ward will have to tackle more closely later on, and he may get the chance in the House next week. But he has made an excellent start by facing the position squarely and courageously, and is entitled to credit accordingly. Sir John Findlay had A still more interesting and courageous announcement to make. The principal reasons for the popular disapproval of hie knighthood are that he ha* not been long enongh in politics and that he is not a member of the House of Representatives, and neveT has been. Ac a Minister of the Crown, he has been able to render valuable service to the Government and the country, but as he entered politics by the back door he has" not tarried weight in proportion to his abilities. He has now determined to remove this disability of perish in the attempt. At the Coming General Election Sir Johh Findlay will seek election to the Honee of Representatives. If he sxteeeedfl, he will retain his portfolio with an immensely enhanced prestige .which might easily carry him to the highest position. If he fails, he will return to the professional practice which he forsook for politics five years ago. This announcement, which was received with cheers last night, will be generally approved by the public, and even 'the Attorney-General's opponents will admire hi 6 courage. " I tvaa not rocked and dandled into a legislator," said Burke in leplymg to an arifetocratio u-iUc who cMved hi* petition, V\ i>hs

Legislature to a, hereditary title. Sir John Findlay cannot boast with Burta that his public position is held by the sole title of the public confidence. But he is now about to renounce his adventitious advantage and to face a popular constituency on his own merits. The ambition and the courage which have inspired this determination, will, we are sure, be widely approved.