MR HOGG'S SPEECH.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 144, 16 June 1909, Page 6

MR HOGG'S SPEECH.

ANOTHER VERSION,

The Dominion's report of the speech , of the Hon. A. W. Hogg in the House on Saturday is as follows:— The Hon. A. W. Hogg said the fio-ures in the Year Book would show that the industries of the Dominion were not failing. He could remember when there was a great deal more unemployment in New Zealand than at the present time. The Member for Manawatu kept crying out for the freehold. There were 15 millions ot acres available—how much more did they want? Too much money was used purely for speculative purposes instead of being used to help the industries. Too much money was invested in national loan companies and other companies of the kind, and in the River Plate. LANDOWNERS LIKE MEPHISTOPHELES. The large-s. landholders were like Mephistopheles1 following Faust—as men who were delighted to see the swagger and the sundowner again going about the country, because they could make their harvest out of them. One of the caiises of the present distress vv?s the }sck of money. The men about wnom he had been talking belonged to the classe who sent their money out of the country—thus making capital scarce, and bringing about a rise in the rate of interest. If those people could get a £ per cent, more for their money in Queensland,, they would send their money there. These men acted the part of the poor despised Chinese—they took the money which they made here to another country. They hated New Zealand ; they hated its Government. The reason why they were taking their money to Queensland and South America was simply that a stop had been put to "this land monopoly business. Land monopoly was, in his opinion, the curse of New Zealand. ■There were in consequence of the action of the large land-holders families in misery, who were deprived of the comforts of life, so that, if it continued, instead of having to find domestic servants, they would have domestic murderers prowling round trying to steal the homes of the people and drive them into the cities. LAND QUESTION TO BE REVIVED. Mr Hogg went on to say that the time was rapidly approaching when the land would be redistributed. The,land question was going to be brought up again in a more formidable fgrm than it had ever previously assumed. Why was •he a land nationaliser (as the Leader of the Opposition termed him) ? He regarded land monopoly as a crime. MrLaurenson: Hear, hear. The man who added acre to acre, section to section, starved the people, and was essentially a criminal. There must be further land taxation, and ■every effort should be made to get the workers on the land. If the Government were deposed, the result would be that those who held Opposition views would carve up the Native lands among themselves. The Government must not allow Native lands to be grabbed as had been done in the past. 'Why tha Opposition were growling was that the Government would not let them have the Treasury Lenches. Those who were advocating the universal freehold were going to have a tax imposed that would make them work their properties, speculate less, and help labor more. STATE NOTE ISSUE. Mr Hogg then defended his recent statements on the question of State j issue of bank notes. He said he did not believe in an inconvertible paper Issue. What he would like to see was that the State instead of a few bank directors should have the power toissue bank notes. The State already issued.postal notes, and what he proposed was only an extension of she principle.

[fkom otxr corkespondent.] Monday : Lobby talk on Saturday night and Sunday centred mainly round the extraordinary and certainly most injudicious speech delivered by the Minister for Labor on Saturday mornBs\ When Mr Hogg was given Ministerial:rank it was predicted• that liis carious incapacity to say tlie right thing,,, and his inclination to say a rarftf-and wrong thing, might get himseif and his colleagues into trouble. Mr Hogg's personal friends—and they »r« not c .few —hoped that with Ministerial office would come a greater se««# of responsibility and a determiir|tion to curb a Sometimes too hasty tongue. On Saturday, however, theirs hopes were shattered, for the nQyf. Minister delivered a speech which not only astonished the Opposition, toat.aMo his-own friends.

A more injudicious and foolish sp«kfla has rarely been delivered by a Mraftffcer of the Crown. It was one

long tirade, not only against the supporters of the freehold—amongst whom, be it remembered, are a large number of members of the Government Party—but against capitalists and land and insurance companies, even coal companies. The money which ought to have been in circulation had gone, said Mr Hogg, into these companies. Also there was a very bitter attack upon landowners, who he accused of wishing to see the roads thronged with swaggers. As if all this wild screeching were not bad enough, the Minister took it upon himself to declare that freeholders would be specially taxed, the inference being that they Avould be penalised for having the audacity to desire to own rather than to lease theland they farmed. As the Minister proceeded with his extraordinary deliverance the House grew more and more astonished, and it is safe to say, not a little disgusted. What the Prime Minister, one of whose objects in going to England is to endeavour to get cheap money for the farmers, thought of his colleague's indiscretion, I cannot say, but in this morning's Times he makes it quite clear that he warmly disapproves, of the sentiments expressed by Mr Hogg. He tells a Times reporter that he heard only portions of the speech but what he did hear expressed the views of neither himself nor his colleagues. One can easily imagine how annoying and embarrassing Mr Hogg's indiscreet speech must be to the Prime Minister. When he goes to the London money market we may be sure that he will be confronted with a report of his colleague's attack upon all who have money invested in \ Tew Zealand land, and not only in land but in various perfectly legitimate public enterprises. It is a very unpleasant thing for a political leader to have to disavow all concurrence i-i views set forth by one of his own colleagues, but it had to be done, and it is good for the country's sake that Sii* Joseph has done it. The Opposition organ this morning naturally chuckles over the spectacle of a Minister playing right into its hands, for the "gag" of the Conservative 'mouthpiece here has always been to picture the Ministry as a lot of wild Socialistic Radicals determined coute que coute to destroy the freehold system. Of course, they: are nothing of the kind. One swallow does not make a summer, and Mr Hogg's opinions are not those of his fellow Ministers. The Times this morning administers a very severe rebuke to Mr Hogg, reminding him that discipline is as necessary in a Ministry as in a regiment. The Times acknowledges Mr Hogg's grand services to democracy in New Zealand, and admits he ris thoroughly honest and well-inten-tioned. "But when," continues the > Government organ, "from his place on the Ministerial benches he advocates impracticable schemes' and outlines radical reforms which his colleagues have neither considered nor endorsed, he places both himself and Cabinet in a false position. The Prime Minister's pointed indication to the Minister for Labor is that this sort of thing cannot go on."

On Saturday the injudicious speech

was the one topic of conversation. There are those who go so far as to contend that the Minister will be asked to resign, and assuredly amongst the Government Party there is a great feeling of soreness at the Minister having, as is argued, so badly compromised his party. If, say these' critics, this sort of thing is going to happen in Parliament in the presence of the Prime Minister, of what verbal follies will not the Minister for Labor be capable when Sir Joseph is away in London. It is even said that the Opposition may be tempted before the short session closes 'to move a resolution pinning the Government down to a declaration for or against the freehold, as it is understood that there is a majoriy for the freehold in the present Parliament. I hardly think, however, that Mr Massey will do this now, but such a motion may be confidently expected when the House resumes business in October. Mr Hogg has made a very bad "break" for his party, and it is difficult to say what serious consequences niay result therefrom. He has certainly- supplied the Opposition with a very strong weapon, a stronger weapon than they have yet forged for themselves.