THE POLITICAL POSITION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 9 July 1924, Page 9

THE POLITICAL POSITION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr Murphy has returned to the charge in characteristic style only to further confuse us as to what he really does want. Though his previous letter declared for a fusion of tne Liberal and Reform parties, he now declares that he has not ceased to lie a Liberal. He has found Mr Wilford* the leader of the party, to be a vacillating rail-sitter, but still he remains a Liberal. The Parliamentary members of the Liberal Party on the eve of the present session unanimously voted confidence in Mr Wilford’s leadership, thereby individually and collectively identifying themselves with his policy of vacillation and rail-sitting, yet Mr Murphy still remains a Liberal. Mr Wilford has been proved unfit to “run the country,” yet he is quite a fit and proper person to run a department of State. Surely Mr Murphy cannot ask us to take this seriously. Let me ask Mr Murphv on what does he base his estimate of Mr .Wilford’s administration of the Department of Justice. What epoch-making legislation have we that dates from his period of office which justifies Mr Murphy’s description of him as “the most efficient Minister of Justice that this Dominion has ever had’ ’ ? Can Mr Murphy mention one legislative or administrative reform that he introduced in this department? Why, Mr Wilford did not even take advantage of his term of office to make it possible for women to be made Justices of the Peace, though he - now claims to strongly favour this reform, and, so far as I know, the only change Mr Wilford was responsible tor in this district was the abolition of the office of resident magistrate in Hawera—a change which has ' not altogether faciltated the administration of justice in this district. Again, who is the leading Australian financier whose opinion of Mr Massey’s financial capacity has been the sole reason for Mr Murphy’s radical revision of his opinion of Mr Massey’s ability? Let Mr Murphy name his authority, or we will lie forced to conclude he has based his opinion on the statement of some anonymous financial critic of a third-rate Australian weekly. Mr Murphy asks, “Why Liberal hypocrisy?” Surely Mr Murphy must' him,seif feel there is a topch of hypocrisy, at least about the attitude or a party which pretends to detest the Massey Administration, and yet consistently votes to keep them m office. Mr Murphy will find' ample proof of this tact in Mr H. E. Holland’s pamphlet entitled “Mr Massey’s Liberal Supporters,” a copy of which I have much pleasure in forwarding to him. Out of the 219 divisions dealt with there it is shown that on 131 occasions a majority of the Liberals (the official ‘ Opposition”) voted with Mr Massey, in many cases saving them by this means from defeat and delaying “the fast approaching downfall of the Massey party, A of wlucn Mr Murphy wrote 'so glibly in 1922. (See Star ,of August, 1922). Bat it Mr Murphy wants further particular instances, wliat does he think of tiie present Liberal enthusiasm for proportional representation when it is on record that one of the terms on which the Liberals joined Mr Massey during the war was on condition that' the Act (already passed) appljung proportional re-, presentation to tne Legislative Council should not* be put into force? Or does Mr Murpny think the Liberals can be acquitted of hypocrisy in view of the record of our member, Mr J. E. Corrigan, M.P., in connection with the Land ’ and Income Tax Bill of 1923? Mr Corrigan promised the electors to combat “class legislation,” to.do all in his power to frustrate measures designed to benefit “the big man,” yet it is on record that when his own party was fighting to restrict taxation concessions to those with less than £IO9O income, Mr Corrigan did not vote on a critical division alter an interview with Mr Coates. Will Mr Murphy defend this sort of thing? Mr Murphy would beter serve his party by defending such actions than by engaging in inelevuncies about- tne home being the foundation of the State. Mr Murphy will, however, find unanimous acceptance for his dictum that, “until a party can govern itself it is not fit to govern other people.” Air Murphy has himself accepted the inevitable, and admits that until his Liberal Party can govern itself and can produce a leader who is not a vacillating railsitter it must abandon all idea, of office. While Labour and’ Reform supporters in the Patea electorate will have enjoyed Mr Murphy’s revelations, their sympathy must have gone out to his fellow-Liberals, whom he has so mercilessly betrayed. These latter, however, may be consoling themselves with Mr'Murphy’s own words in his letter of August, 1922, when he wrote: “it is part of your Massey Party propaganda- to run down the Liberal Leader, and all connected with Liberalism. 1 promise you it does not disconcert us in the slightest, as we take it as a compliment.” Are we then to apply the description of Mr Murphy 1922 to Mr Murphy 1924, and conclude that he is a Massey propagandist?—l" am. etc., W. BROWN, Secretary. Kawc-ra Branch N.Z. Labour Party. July 7, 1924.