The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1905.

Evening Star, Issue 12624, 2 October 1905, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1905.

Tir his speech on Friday Mr A. S. Adame hod a good deal to say rePolttleal Facts gar ding the alleged weakness and of the Ministerial personnel. Fallacies. The subject is somewhat trite, and by dint of constant repetition it has come to be associated in many minds with a rrtrmbe'r of delusive notions. Critics of the composition of the Government usually start off with the suggestion that Mr Sodden is an absolute monarch, who has deliberately surrounded himself with docile colleagues of the nonentity order. Then the thought of Sir Joseph Ward occurs to them—sadly disturbing the theory of tbo “ one-man ” Government —and they ora constrained to throw in a parenthesis admitting that the Minister of Railway* and Postmaster-Gene-ral has a mind of his own and abilities above the average. The rest of .the Cabinet are indiscriminately and rather insultingly lumped together- as “incompetent.” Now, we were among the first to draw attention to the weak places in the Ministry, and wo recognise a certain element of truth in the criticisms in question, though the blame does not attach exclusivdly orjeven mainly to Mr Seddon. But let it first be noted that the mischief has been grossly exaggerated. H<Av do matters stand? There are eight Ministers, two of whom are men of exceptional strength and ability. This is not a bad start, but no doubt it would be insufficient if all the remaining six had to be rated as incompetent duffers. And this is what they are, according to Mr Adams and his school. There could not be a greater mistake, however. Take the Minister of Public Works. Tbo remarkable advance made by Mr Hall-Jones dnring the last two or three years is inadequately realised in this part of the Colony. By foree of intelligent industry he haa developed into an administrator of quite exceptional efficiency, as well as a public speaker of more than average resourcefulness. When Mr Adams asserts in his glib fashion that “ there is not a single matter in connection

with tho machinery of the Colony, except “ those under the control of Sir Joseph 11 Ward, which is not settled by Mr Bed-

“ don,” he does gross injustice to the independence and practical power of tho Minister of Public Works and some of the other members of Cabinet. Mr M’Gowan may not be a. brilliant politician, but Mr Adam* ought to know that he has made aa excellent Minister of Mines, while Colonel Pitt has led the Legislative Council with considerable ability and unfailing tact. Mr Carroll, as Native Minister, is admittedly tho right man in the right place; he is a debater of almost the first rank —perhaps the most persuasive speaker irk the House—ami if ho could only get the better of his constitutional or racial sluggishness his political possibilities would be very high. There remain two Ministers in whose behalf it is not possible for us to say much, but these are tho only really weak points, and it is high time that there was on end of the thoughtless chatter about "Mr Seddon, Sir Joseph Ward, and the incompetents.” It should be borne in mind, too, that Ministries of “ all tho talents ” have usually been anything but successful or popular. The late Sir Edward Stafford formed a combination of that brilliant Order once upon n time, and if we remember right it tasted less than a month. A Premier’s field of choice is Emited te a great extent by geographical or provincial considerations; and admitting that such considerations are essentially irrelevant, stiH their popularity has to ho reckoned with. Some of Mr Adams’s arguments ore effective enough as against the present system of party government, but they are futile as against the Seddon Ministry. Is tie so sanguine as to befievo that a Massey Administration

(quaint ideal) would be tree from the inherent evils of tire party system? Or could he undertake to find among the oocnpants of the anti-Ministerial benches eight men UWy to be lore “ incompetent ” than Mr Seddon and his present colleague*? The eemt-mythiesl character of these allegations of incompetence and nonentity should henceforth be recognised—though at the same time ve regret that Mr Seddon did not take the advice which we offered him two years ago, and again last year, and partially reconstruct the Cabinet, with a view to removing one or two patent defects. A strong Minister of Lands is particularly There have been difficulties in the way of leenastnictton, however, and the Premier-is not whoHyrcnhashVi in-the

nutter. The majority of the Liberal parliamentarians have failed to approve the suggestions which have been made irom time to time, and the provincial issue, as ■well as North verm Booth, baa been an obstacle. We regret, too, that the party refused to support the Government in the project (first mooted in onr columns) of appointing two or more parliamentary Under-Secretaries to assist the Cabinet, as the subordinate offices would have served incidentally os a training ground for higher Ministerial position. It may be noted in passing that the plan of promoting the Senior Whip o! the party has been strikingly unsuccessful—an indeed might have been expected, seeing that the special qualities required in a party manager are quite distinct from those which arc most valuable in a Minister of the Crown. There is not likely to be any change before the General Election, and on the whole the Premier has no cause to be ashamed of his team, who have done the State good service and whose much-advertised deficiencies are largely imaginary; but it is likely enough that, the new Parliament may demand some alterations and furnish facilities for making them. We agxeo with Mr Adams that the Elective Executive is the chief and most obvious remedy for the undoubted evils of the body politic; hut wo are convinced that the accomplishment of that reform can only be hindered and delayed by advocacy which draws its inspiration and its material from anti-Sed-donian partisanship. Seeing that Mr Adams’s speech was in some respects typical, and also that it was marked by more seriousness and less bitterness than the majority of anti-Ministerial utterances, we shall make no apology for dealing with some of his other topics in another article.