Evening Post. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1919. THE PARAMOUNT DUTY

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 144, 16 December 1919, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1919. THE PARAMOUNT DUTY

It was not to be expected that Sir Joseph Ward would - break any new ground in the speech delivered in the Town Hall last night. A leader's main object when he speaks on the very eve of the poll is rather to stimulate the enthusiasm of his followers, than to propound a new programme, and the enthusiasm of yesterday's Liberal rally was beyond question. For those who cannot throw themselves with enthusiasm into a party fight which they regard as a serious menace to the highest interests of the country, the most interesting and satisfactory point in the Liberal leader's speech was »his unequivocal repudiation of dependence under any conditions on the support of revolutionary Labour. Those who caw in Sir Joseph Ward's attempts-to conciliate a much less dangerous Labour Party after the General Election of 1911 one of the most unsatisfactory episodes in his public career, and had regarded his previous treatment of the subject during the present campaign as less uncompromising than Mr. Massey's, will welcome this emphatic statement. If the Reformers come back from the elections in a minority, Sir Joseph Ward will not disdain the help of the Labour Party in turning them out, but he will not allow that temporary and destructive co-operation to dictate the policy of his Government. "If we cannot maintain our position," he says, "except by being squeezed by a section who declare they are going to make us adopt their policy, then I say on behalf of the Liberal Party that we will not remain in."

The Liberal leader has thus cut from und-er the feet of his critics the only plausible ground for that suggestion of an alliance between Liberalism and revolutionary Labour which he so vehemently repudiates. There is obviously, no such alliance now, and Sir Joseph Ward pledges the party against such alliance in the future, whatever the result of the elections may be. He agrees with Mr. Massey that no constitutional and patriotic party can submit to the degradation which a dependence upon such allies would involve. The country is pleased to see that the rival leaders who have been driven by the exigencies of party warfare to exaggerate and inflame their mutual differences are in agreement on this fundamental point, but it . regrets that the clear recognition of a common danger which the agreement implies has not found expression in an understanding which would have averted the danger, instead of merely seeking to qualify one of its possible results by negative and conditional pledges. For four years Reformers and Liberals worked in double harness for the. good of the country. The passing of the peril which brought them and kept them together has resulted in the dissolution of bonds which had begun to chafe. But it is patent to everybody not hopelessly obsessed by the spirit of party' that there is still a common enemy in the field, whose declaration of war against the State demands a closing up of the ranks of loyal and level-headed citizens. This fact has received a sort of ofncial recognition from the leaders in the pledges to which we have referred, but the recognition is partial, halting, and conditional, and its operation is postponed until the fighting of the traditional party battle to the very last ditch has given to this common enemy the chance of a lifetime.

Mr. Massey does not regard tho Jjiberjds as the enemies' of the State, with whom any honourable association is impossible for loyal citizens, nor does Sir Joseph Ward so regard the Reform Party. Yet is it not a fact that in nearly half the constituencies both leaders are dividing the loyal forces to the best of their ability according to the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Liberalism and Reform, and thereby giving to the Extremists the opportunity, of capturing the seat by a minority vote and inflicting in the aggregate a mischief which it is impossible to estimate? The fact is that each leader hopes for a clea ; r majority, despite the intrusion of Labour into at least fifty of the constituencies, and will have no thought of compromise unless the result of the vote-splitting is to give Labour the balance of powor in the new •House. Even then no definite hope of so-operatioa is held out, for, as we have pointed out, the pledge of both leaders is merely negative. Neither will hold office by favour of the Labour Party, but whether another General Election will not be needed before a reasonable working arrangement can be effected between the constitutional forces remains an open question. As tho parties are estranged rather by the personal differences of their leaders than by any fundamental differences of policy or principle, the development of the negative pledge along constructive lines may be no easy matter.

"Vote for Safety. Take no Bisks. Vote R-eform" is one of the

''"slogans" of the Reform Party. A watchword which has no application to three of the most important contests of nil—Wellington Central, Wellington South, and Buller—is clearly defective. By ■ tho change of two words the formula might be made to duty for the Opposition : " Vote for Progress. Take no, Risk.?. Vote Liberalism." But a formula which gives revolutionary Labour a- chance against 'moderate Reformers in such districts as Wellington -forth and East, who were otherwise safe, cannot be eaid to take no risks. A more, comprehensive .watchword is

needed than that of either of the parties, and we suggest that the following • meets the case: "Vote for Safety and Progress. Take no Risks. Vote against Revolutionary Labour." This formula covers the whole ground, and sums up, as it seems to us, the paramount duty of the patriotic elector in every constituency. He should disregard party cries, catchwords, and prejudices, and give a vote for the country against its enemies. R-egardless of party, he should vote for tho man who is likeliest to keep out the nominee of revolutionary Labour. A party whose loyalty to King and country has been impugned in the plainest possible terms and not asserted even in the most perfunctory manner, which in one of its strongholds has six times in succession denied the opposing candidate a fair hearing, and has attacked the right of free speech with a large measure of success in other districts; and which, with its revolutionary ideals, is powerless to build and can only destroy, is a party with which no compromise. should be possible for a loyal citizen. But he does compromise with the evil thing if he casts a party vote in entire disregard of its existence.