ABSOLUTE CONTROL

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3577, 7 April 1927, Page 8

ABSOLUTE CONTROL

Who is Responsible ?

CHARGE MADE AGAINST PRIME MINISTER

{“Times” Special.]

In a letter addressed to the “Taranaki Daily News” which has attracted considerable attention here, Mr. EJ, A. James, the Dominion Secretary of the Political Reform, League, took upon himself the task of . defending the Prime Minister from a charge made against him by the New Plymouth journal to the effect that he was responsible for the confirmation of the Dairy Produce Control Act in its present form, and therefore responsible for the disquieting results that had followed upon Its administration. “I cannot help thinking,” -Mr. James shaped his protest with the courtesy he always maintains j “it is rather unfortunate that , so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, you' should have fallen into the error of assuming that Mr. Coates is in any way responsible for the unparalleled powers exercised by thb Dairy Control Board in imposing ‘its coercive ideas’ upon British traders in the marketing of dairy produce.” 'ln support of his “thinking” Mr. James traces the progress of the Dairy Bill from its introduction in 1922 till its final passage in 1925, implying that Mr. Coates was neither responsible for its . contents nor for its progress . through the House, though at the time, he was a' Minister of the Crown’ and voted consistently with his colleagues and the other supporters of compulsion. . The Editorial Retort. The “Daily News” in reiterating its indictment is no less courteous than Mr. James, but perhaps a little more emphatic. “Mr Coates was the head of the Government,” it says. “He had been returned by an overwhelming majority... .He was master of the situation; he could do almost anything ho liked; he had power to suspend the power of the compulsory clauses of the Act. ■ But how did he act?. Ho brushed aside the earnest advice and strong representations of those who feared the consequences of the rash experiment.. •i He had his party whipped into lino when it came to voting, except one or two who had the backbone to withstand him, and rejected the - amendments. His responsibility therefore is absolute, ; .... He cannot shift it on to Parliament or on to the-farmers themselves. Such an excuse would be as futile as would be that of a captain who blamed his crew for a disaster to his ship. .. .Mr Coates was warned, not by his opponents so much-as by his friends and supporters of the risks and dangers he was running, but he was obdurate.” That the “News” is not seeking to make party capital out of the trouble of the producers may be gathered frbm its expression of readiness to take the Prime Minister to its heart again • when he divests the Dairy Board of its compulsory powers. The Indictment Justified. Meanwhile it is necessary only to quote from Hansard of August 4, 1926, when tho Dairy Produce Export Control Bill was in Committee ■of the House, three proposed amendments to the measure that were rejected by the Prime Minister and his big batallions. Here they are in Parliamentary phraseology. Mr Nash (Palmerston) moved to add the following new clause: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act, no notice by the Board under section thirteen of the principal Act of its intention to assume absolute contrql shall take effect before the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty seven,” New clause not added. Mr Veitch (Wanganui) moved to add the following new ck&use:—‘'■Notwithstanding to the contrary in the principal Act, no notice by the Board under section thirteen of the principal Act of its intention to assume absolute control shall take effect unless and until such notice has been confirmed by a referendum of tho producers.” Motion negatived. Mr. Yeitch (Wanganui) moved to add the following new clause: —“Notwithstanding contrary in the principal Act, no notice by the Board under section thirteen of the principal Act of its intention to assume absolute control shall take effect unless and until such notice has been confirmed by the Minister of 1 Agriculture.” Motion negatived. Mr Nash’s motion was rejected on a division by 50 votes to 19, Mr. Coates and all his colleagues voting with the majority and Mr Vcitch’s two motions were rejected on tho voices. The Shadow Before. It must be said for Mr James that while he stands loyal by his employers ho docs not personally subscribe to the doctrine of compulsion. “The time chosen to introduce compulsion” ho says in the concluding paragraph of his letter, “was certainly unfortunate. Not only were there large stocks o£ unsold butter on the London market when the board took absolute control, but Great Britain was suffering from an unprecedented depression, arising out of the coal crisis, and very determined opposition was being offered to tho price-fixing tactics which form part of. the Board’s