ESTABLISHED 1866. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1903. THE ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXVII, Issue 168, 17 July 1903, Page 2

ESTABLISHED 1866. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1903. THE ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

A measure which we trust may receive a short shrif fc and speedy relegation to the list of measures not passed, is the Elective Executive Bill. Precisely what form the measure is to assume this session is not yet known, as the measure already introduced has been, we notice, withdrawn. It is understood, however, that there is a strong party in the House pledged to support the main principle of the Elective Executive, and it is further rumored that the friends of the proposed change in our constitution are very sanguine of success. We do not share this latter opinion, and even should the principle be affirmed by the House of Representatives, we have the fullest confidence in the Council, which, we feel assured, would reject the scheme. Party Government may have, and we. admit is accompanied by many seriovs drawbacks, but to adopt tie Elective Executive principle would, in our opinion, only make matters worse. Once again let us state our old argument against the principle. Under the Elective Executive principle a new Parliament, once it assembled, would elect a Ministry, the members of which would hold office for the term of the Parliament, and could not be turned out of office, although their I measures could be rejected. It is claimed that through this means a j Government could not make anything and everything a "party" question, and that measures would be considered j more on their intrinsic merits and de- ! foots than is at present the case. We claim, however, that, just as the present Government represents a majority in the House, any elected Executive would also represent a majority. The so-called Conservatives would certainly not vote for men, however able, who held opinions opposed to those of the former, and it is not likely, for instance, that so-called Liberals would vote for Sir Wm. Russell, Mr James Allen or Mr Maasey. The Executive elected would, we claim, be just aa much a " party" Executive, in all but the namo as the present Cabinet. But there would be a difference in one way, and that is, that whereas the present Ministry could be turned out if a majority in the House, reflecting discontent in the constituencies, chose to drive them out, under the Elective Executive this could not be done. Against tbe present Government th 3 cry is often beard "We don't object to its broad general policy, but to its administration." But although under ah Elective Executive the Government's measures could be rejected, it could go on administering as it liksd, and there could be no change until the Parliament expired. With these simple facts before us we totally fail to see how an adoption of the Elective Executive principle could be any great advantage. One point more. Supposing what is very unlikely to happen, namely, that a composite Cabinet were elected, does any reasonably minded person, possessing the most elementary knowledge of New Zealand politics, imagine that the members of a Cabinet containing, say, Mr Seddon, Sir Joseph Ward j Sir Wm. Russell, Mr James Allen, Mr John Duthie, Mr T. E. Taylor, and Mr Hogg—to go no further —would ever pull together, aad yet the above are a very likely team to be chosen if the ablest men in the House, irrespective of party, were to be elected. The whole supposition to us is simply ridiculous in the extreme. Party government, we repeat, has its disadvantages, but a remedy will certainly not be found in an Elective Executive. v-