Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1925. VOICE OF THE COUNTRY

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 118, 22 May 1925, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1925. VOICE OF THE COUNTRY

The attitude of the Reform Party's Caucus to the problem with which it has been summoned to deal on Wednesday next seemed to be an open question a week ago, but the result of the .continuous discussion which has filled the interval is to suggest the conclusion to which it is likely to come. It is recognised that in Mr. Downie Stewart and Mr. Coates the party has two candidates who are exceptionally well qualified for the leadership, and that the party, including the unsuccessful competitor, would have little difficulty in serving under either of them; but the balance of opinion now inclines towards Mr. Coates as the likelier and better choice. The advantages of physical strength, of energetic initiative, and of fighting force are all on his side, and it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of these qualities in the turmoil of democratic politics. Mr. Stewart's well-balanced and well-furnished mind give him both the strength and the weakness of the student in politics. His cautious temperament and his knowledge of law, of external affairs, and of the forms of the House will enable him to supply elements which are essential to the success of any Ministry, and in which Mr. Coates is much less liberally endowed. The v qualities of the two men are thus mutually complementary to a very remarkable extent, but the general feeling in the party appears to be that the most suitable arrangement will be to give Mr. Stewart the second place. The presumption that his role should be that of the Premier's right-hand man is strengthened by the parts played by two other distinguished lawyers—Sir John Findlay and Sir Francis Bell in the Ward and the Massey Administrations respectively. But a stronger argument than any precedent is the grievous physical disability honourably incurred by Mr. Stewart in'the ser. vice of his country. The country is, however, well content to leave the choice to the Eeform members, whose intimate association with the two men may supply them with some grounds -for a difficult decision beyond those accessible, to us all, and there will be no cavilling with the choice, whatever it may be. But on the much broader and more important question wl. Sh calls for treatment at the same time the country has a very strong opinion of its own, and is not equally well satisfied to trust the judgment of the Caucus. The three-party system which has brought weakness, indecision, and instability to every country which has tried it has hitherto not realised its full possibilities of mischief in New Zealand. We owe this relative immunity in very large measure to the cool judgment, the Parliamentary skill, and the masterful personality of the leader we have just lost. At both the last General Elections Mr. Massey's excellent leadership was materially aided by the luck which plays a strong hand in single-member districts under the "first-past-the-post" • system, and has become a still more powerful influence since the arrival of a third party. But without a strong leader no luck would have saved the Eeform Party and enabled it to carry on the Government continuously since the break-up of the National Cabinet nearly six years ago. How can the party expect, under any leader, to survive the Parliamentary warfare of the next three years if the conditions are like those.with which Mr. Massey struggled so gallantly and so successfully during the last two and a half years ? The leadership must, of course, be much weaker. Where, then, is the new strength to come from that will not only balance this severe handicap but provide the enlarged majority without which an inexperienced leader cannot possibly keep going ? Amid all the arguments and speculations of the past week we have not heard a single word to suggest that there is any hitherto untapped source of strength upon which the Eeform Party can rely to enable it to wrestle successfully, single-handed, with the position in which it isleft by the loss of Mr. Massey. The point is simply blinked by the Eeform Die-hards who are anxious to see the party retain a monopoly: of power but are quite unable to suggest the means. Those who believe that by this no-compromise 'attitude they are battling for things as they are will find, if they -succeed on this point next week, that things will not remain as ihey are much longer. There is one moral of . Mr. Massey's great fight against heavy odds to which we invite the particular attention of his party • at the present time. Seldom has a political leader had to face a more desperate-looking position than that which Mr. Massey had to face when, on the eve of the short session of 1919 and within three or four months of the General Election, the War Coalition was dissolved by the Liberal leader without notice. It looked very like a forlorn hope, but Mr. Massey faced the position boldly, replaced his Iffttisaal Cabinet htf a pai-ty Goh-

with an increased reputation, and scored the greatest victory of his career at the General Election. How did he manage it? An essential, and perhaps the most powerful, contributor to his success was the feeling that he had played the game and the other side had not. It was not he but Sir Joseph' Ward that had elected to divide the forces that stood for national and stable progress in the face of an enemy which had been an obstacle to the national cause during the war and threatened, with the help of post-war stagnation and discontent, to give still greater trouble. It is for the Reform Party to say whether the positions are to be reversed during the coming struggle. The Liberals appear to be willing to co-operate on a national basis, and unless the Reformers make an offer which will give them the chance, the public is likely to say that it is not the Reformers but the Liberals who have played the game this time.