Evening Post THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1914. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S POLICY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 6

Evening Post THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1914. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S POLICY

Last night, at Auckland, Sir Joseph Ward stood before a very large assembly of citizens. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was one of the largest audiences, he had ever faced. Therefore it was a splendid opportunity to exercise that "right of free speech" about which Oppositionists have been so eloquent lately. The people were in a friendly mood — the Press Association report says that "throughout Sir Joseph was given an enthusiastic hearing" — but he preferred the right of silence in regard to his policy. "He was not going at present to suggest policies," he declared, "for the Reformers would simply collar them and use them for their own purposes. ... He had been challenged to disclose his policy, but what an infernal ass he would be to do so !" It seems that the word "policy" threatens to become as vague as "democrat" and "scab." If a party that was in power for over twenty years has not now rv recognisable policy, what has it? Ha 3 it any fixed beliefs and firm ideals? If the Liberal "policy" may be something to tempt the so-called "Tories" to commit theft, then what is a "Liberal" and what is a "Tory?" By "policy" Sir Joseph evidently means a helpful electioneering scheme, and he is, naturally, not eager to expose his vote-catching machinery to the covetous gaze of the Government. The Post can name one land policy which the Ministry would not steal, and Sir Joseph knows it well. By keeping clear of the land and by confessing that his deferred policy in other respects may be appropriated by the "Reformers" as soon as it is seen, Sir Joseph practically supports the argument of the Social Democrats that there is no appreciable difference between the Liberal party and the Reform party. The Opposition Leader's policy is expected to reveal the difference, if any, but the policy is still in cold store. Generally, the speech was similar to those delivered south of Auckland. Sir Joseph repeated his complaint about the circular issued by a representative of the Reform League, urging people to meet and condemn the Opposition for the "stonewall" on the Second Ballot Repeal Bill, and in this matter the grievance is undoubtedly just. The "hold-up," as The Post has proved, was a gross abuse of free speech, but that electioneering letter was an ignoble ruse. In other parts of the address, which was critical throughout, Sir Joseph was vague in some passages and vnfair in others. He reverted to the strike, of course, and remarked that "without asking farmers to come from the country, he would undertake to say that he could have stopped the strike in two days." Perhaps, but on what terms? By surrender to the Reds? Sir Joseph was head of the Government at the time of the Blackball strike, and the first serious strike at the State coal mire of Runanga, and The Post's memory of the Liberal Administration at those times, and others, is that courage was not a conspicuous element. It is absurd to allege that anybody could have settled, satisfactorily, in two days, a strike which rapidly developed into a "social revolution," as the Reds say. Oppositionists are wilfully ignorant — there is no excuse for lack of knowledge—in regard to the industrial creed and other notions of the Red Federals. One misleading statement in the report is that "the Government was going to reduce borrowing, but already it had borrowed twelve millions." A very important omission is the number of millions that have to be included for renewals of maturing loans and shortdated debentures raised by the Liberals. Another peculiar comment by Sir Joseph was on the cost of living. The figures have been confused in transmission, but the contention is that the Liberal Party much reduced the cost, which wa3 being increased by the reformer?. Sir Joseph Ward resigned in March, 1912. and one of th? first important acts of the short-lived "Mackenzie Ministry was to appoint a Uoyal Commission to enquire into the causes of tfce increasing cort of living— after more than a scoie of years of tl>e Liberal regime, the long mil of th« "Continuous Ministry," Was theio not a sad mistake in the onicr of reference? Should no' v the Commission have enquired into tfre subjsci, of decreasing cost '! Gi" Joseph's criticism shows many s!g"is of hasty compilation, and is therefore a disap point men t to impartial observers of the fjohticyl uuriy-ba rly. TvT v .voald be a }>etmfit to iho country to have accurate, u.ioi criticism of the Government, but die' Opposition prefers the easier method of general denunciation in unconvincing