THE MATAURA CONTEST.

Mataura Ensign, 9 November 1908, Page 3

THE MATAURA CONTEST.

('Southland Times.') If all reports are true, and soino of diem como irom men whp are in a very good position to appraise the feeling of Jie electorate, it will take Mr McNab all bis time to hold the Mataura seat, it is becoming every day more clear chat Air McNab's position in Mataura lias weakened since the date of last election. The feeling of uneasiness that pervades the colony, and the growing distrust of the Government's land and niiancial policy, have affected Mr Mci Sab in common with other Ministers, and in addition Mr McNab has himself during the last three years sown a few political wild oats which are now coming to harvest. We fancy that Mr McNab lias becomo a little nervous as to the outcome of the poll to be taken on the 17th inst. How otherwiso can we explain his rather fanciful appeal to i lie electors at Gore 011 Thursday night .0 return him again because there are three Otago and Southland members :n the Administration to which 110 belongs? That argument seems to us to bo remarkable more for naivette than for anything else. If Mr McNab were She only representative of the southern part of the South Island in the Cabinet we should say that he would have a very iood claim to be returned, 011 the ground that Otago and Southland should not be deprived of representation in tlio Ministry. But with three Alinistors Otago and Southland surely iiavo more than their equitable proportion. and one could very easily be spared. This far-fetched argument, and the strong personal plea which followed it, indicate, we think, that Mr UcNab is suffering from those apprehensions which prey upon a member whoso seat is insecure. Other evidence jf some such state of mind abounds in tho Gore speech. One and not tlio least of Mr McNab's troubles is the necessity and difficulty of reconciling his Sand legislation with tho decided opinions lie expressed as a private member in 1905 and preceding years. Mr McNab essayed this task at Gore and gave his audience this laborious explanation:—"AA'hen the AYard Administration took up tho Government in'this country, and he was asked to take over the portfolio of Minister of Lands, it was not supposed that the policy in connection with the lands of the country was to be absolutely identical with "very point advocated by the individual member who took up that portfolio. Was it suggested that the policy of the Ward Administration 111 connection ivith 'Labor was identical with the position taken up on that question by the fckm. Mr Millar when he was standing for the House? No doubt his views would largely mould the policy of the Administration, but nobody would expect that the two positions would coincide. At the very best it could only be expected that there would be a considerable difference between the opinions of that member and the policy of the Government of which he. was a member, i'lie result was the same in connection with the land question. It was not to ! >e expected that every jioint he made when speaking to them as their representative in connection with "the land problem was to be found incorporated 111 ■he policy of the Ward Administration in the land question," Can any theory less satisfactory or more inadequate be, magined? Mr McNab virtually tells : iis constituents that when he became Minister of Lands it became necessary for him to desert, his personal convictions with regard to the land question ■uul take h s opinions from his coi-n-agues in the Administration. In other words his fitness to take the portfolio of the Minister of Lands lay not in his own grasp of a clear sound policy, 'nit in his willingness to adapt his own views to those of a policy prepared for him !>y somebody else. AA'e are prepared to concede that 110 private memVr entering the Ministry can reasonably expect the policy of the Cabinet to V "absolutely ideniical with his own ; n every point," but no member can xpect to retain his prestige unimpaired if he accepts office at the price of •sacrificing his own convictions to a policy diametrically opposed to them. That is Jlr McNab's position. That is ! he position he took up when he nailed his colors to the mast over the first Land Hill, only to pull them down again, thereby causing Ministers and faithful Government followers much humiliation and confusion, and it is little wonder, therefore, that his laborious explanation to the electors of Mataura should be flaccid and unconvincing. Another of Mr McNab's troubles is the Meikle vote of £SOOO. It us reported that at Gore 011 Thursday night In' riiade the following statement to an audience that preserved a stony silence: "What was the position of the Government with regard to the Meikle legislation and the vote of £oooo that ; was submitted to the Committee of the 'louse? During the last year of tile Administration the wltole question of the Meikle case was submitted to a court consisting of two Supreme Court judges. Here was an extraordinary court without, rule, and with no power to bring into effect its judg--1 nient. Judgment was not given until the Ward Administration was in office. The only duty of the Government was to bring in machinery lo give effect to the judgment of the court, and, as far as posssible, what, they did was to give effect to thai judgment. . . , There I was no other alternative for the Adiniu--1 istration to adopt than to give effect , to the decision of the judges. AVhat • could he said of a Minister of Justice ■ who prevented his officers giving effect to a decision'of one of tile judges lie--1 cause he did not believe in it? Parliament. had no power to increase an 1 appropriation, and the Government, in submitting a sum on the Estimates, ■ must lis a sum beyond which it knew the 1 House would not go. The amount of 1 compensation was fixed at £.">000, and : every member of the Ministry voted for ■ it. He (Mr McNab) was a member of 1 the. Executive which brought it down. , It was said that those who voted for ■ the sum in their individual capacity ■ thought this man was entitled to C-iODO. If they wanted to lind out the • opinion of some of the Administration, ; read the evidence. Who was it that 1 prosecuted Meikle before the court, and i appeared for the Crown? Who was it • that, submitted M«'i|jlo to one of the ■ severest cross-examinations that had ever takci place in any of our courts? Who was ii thai addressed the court I en that occasion? By a strange irony of fate that man, when the report, of the jmh'.es he had came down , to tiie Executive of the da.v. to he given ■ effect t 1, held the portfolio of Attorney General (l)r Kindlav), and as :: 1 member of the Executive had to carry otU (he decree /if (he court. Thai • would sliow 1 iieisi that the question of 1 the individual opinion of a member of - the Executive had nothing whatver to - do with submitting this sum of money 1 to the consideration of 'Parliament." t Either this statement is meaningless or 1 it means that tlio vote op £SOOO was in- . eluded in the estimates in accordance I . .

with the recommendation of the Mciklt Commission, and further that tho vote lias brought down by the Government ! u opposition to the views of certain individual members of the Cabinet, of whom, by inference, Mr McNab was ?i 10 xT a , Findla.v was another. Mr McNab asks the electors of Mataura to believe that though he was personally oppposcd to the vote lie wis justified as a Cabinet unit not only in agreeing to its inclusion in tho Estimates, but in voting for it. One i< justified in asking if Mr McNab luu I any convictions at all which he is not prepared to throw overboard at the behest of the head of the Government, and if his whole policy is not summed up 111 one sentence: "Keep office at all costs." But apart from Mr McNab's willingness to sink his individuality whenever ho is asked to, his constituents are entitled to inquire in what part of the Royal Commission's report the vote to Meikle is recommended. In the first place the Commission expressly pointed out that where a disputed claim is settled by the payment of a sum of money (as the Meikle case was settled) it has always been considered to bo "a rule of high publie policy that such a settlement fairly antl honorably arrived at, should never afterwards be allowed to bo disturbed." The Commission further reported : "We are not aware that in any circumstances' as exist in the present case any moral right in a person wrongly convicted to be compensated or indemnified out of the public funds has ever been recognised or allowed by a "Government or Parliament of Great Britain or any community regulated by the principles of English law"; and said further that between tlie ease of Meikle and the case of Adolpli Heck (who received CSOOO from the British Government) "there was not a point of similarity." The Commission further felt it necessary to warn the Government that to recognise any right to indemnity or compensation in such cases as those of Meikle "would impose an enormous and ever increasing burden upon the finances of the State." There is not one word in the whole.report of the Meikle Commission that can be quoted in support of the £SOOO vote, and despite all that Mr McNab may say that vote was rejected by Parliament simply because it was .utterly unwarrantable ; the Government in suggesting it committed an act of extraordinary weakness, and Mr McNab in tacitly approving and votingNfor it placed himself in a position wholly false and untenable. There -an be little pleasure for Mr McNab in his present election contest, but for that he has only himself to blame, and he will have 110 cause for complaint if the verdict of the approaching poll should not bo iu his favor.