Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1914. WHY NOT THE FACTS?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 4 March 1914, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1914. WHY NOT THE FACTS?

WHEN Sir Joseph Ward returned to New Zealand, and was appointed Leader of the Opposition, we confidently expressed the hope that the Opposition under his direction would discontinue the carping spirit, and either support or criticise the legislation and administration of the Government according to its views on the political questions o£ the day. But, unfortunately—w e use the term advisedly, for an Opposition can render good service to the country—these hopes have not been realised, and Sir Joseph Ward has proved himself a failure as Opposition Leader. Certainly his task was not an easy one. He had a disjointed party to control, a party with no binding principles, no common ideals to weld it together. Some of its members incline to Red Fedism, some are directly opposed to it ; some are freeholders, and some are leaseholders. Whilst in power it did not matter very much, for few of its members -were overburdened with political principle; but when in opposition the trouble came, and the public saw how very much divided and split up into all sorts of sections, was the party. In pointing out Sir Joseph Ward's failure to weld the party to 7 gether, aft these things, in fairness to him, must be borne m,mind. But, ev«u admitting the difficulties, what has Sir Joseph Ward himself done in the way of setting an example to his followers? Take, for instance, his windy Winton oration. Apart from the fact that Sir Joseph occupies the Dominion record for saying the least, absolutely nothing 'in ifacfc, in the greatest number of words, was his speech of the natuTe one would expect from- the leader of any political party? When the Red Feds, speak they do say something. They, express a definite programme, and the people know exactl"- where they are. But this is not so with the Opposition. It has no stated policy. It is simply out to win on mere assertion and the promise of something good. It is its duty to show where the Government is wrong, and to tell the people what it will do if returned to power. If the Government is Conservative there can be no danger that a Liberal programme will be stolen. Yet, strangely enough, the Opposition says this is what it actually fears, and almost in the same breath it tells them that the Government is hopelessly Conservative. * * * It will be remembered that in his Winton speech, Sir Joseph Ward in, an indefensible manner misrepresented the position regarding the increase in taxation. The full report of these remarks was thus: It is perfectly- idle for the Massey Government to attempt to refute the fact that since they have taken office the taxation of the people has risen by 10s 3d per head for every man, woman, and child in the Dominion, because in the Year Book issued under the authority of the present Prime Minister for 1913, on page 781, you will find it stated that

the taxation when the Ward Government left office in 1911 was £4 16s lid. The first year of the Massey Government it rose to £5 3s 10d, and in 1913 it further rose to £5 7s 2d. A correspondent, "Democrat," in the "New Zealand Herald," has clearly stated the true position from the Year Book in the following lines:—(l) The Ward Government did not leave office in 1911, but retired on 'March 29, 1912, three days before the close of the financial year, of which Sir Joseph speaks as "the first year of the Massey Government." V The Year Book shows that the Ward Ministry succeeded to office on August 6, 1906, and retired on March 28, 1912, whereas the Massey Ministry did not assume office until July 10, 1912, the Mackenzie "stop gap" Ministry holding office in the interval. (2) It is thus clear that the responsibility for the increase from £4 16s lid in 1911 to £5 3s lOd per head of the population in 1912 rests with the Ward Ministry, which held office for 362 days out of the 365. A reference to page 781 of the Year Book shows that the figures covering the "revenue ifrom. taxation" are in each instance for the financial year ended March 31. 13) The 1911, 1912, and 1913 figures are correctly stated by Sir Joseph Ward, but it is alto- ' gether untrue and contrary to fact to say i that the Massey Government has increased taxation on the people of this country by 10s 3d per head of the population. It is not even, responsible for the whole of the increase between the years 1912 and 1913, when the taxation revenue rose from £5 3s lOd to £5 7s 2d, or by 3s' 4d per head of the population. A portion at least of this incerase is fairly attributable to the Mackenzie Ministry, which held office for 100 days out of the 365 covered by the financial year ended March 31, 1913. Waiving this point, however, and admitting that the 'Massey .Government may be charged with the responsibility of the increase between 1912 and 1913, what does it amount to? The question is answered in the next point. (4) Sir Joseph Ward (using his own argument against Mr Massey) himself "increased taxation on the people of this country" by 6s lid per head between March 31, 1911, and March 31, 1912, as against the Massey Government's increase of 3s 4d per head. The table from which Sir Joseph Ward takes his figures shows conclusively (again using Sir Joseph's own argument) that during his six years of office he "increased, the taxation of the people" by 16s 3d per head (that is from £4 7s 7d 1906 to £5 3s lpd in 1912), and lis 5d of this increase actually occurred between 1910 (the year of the fivemillion loan) and 1911, the per capita, taxation revenue in the former year being £4 5s 6d, whereas for the succeeding 12 months it, was £4 16s lid. 1 * * * And then Sir Joseph Ward endeavoured to bolster up his attitude during the ; recent strike. The .Dunedin "Star," which for years has been an ardent supporter of Sir Joseph Ward, but a- journal that expresses its mind, takes the., leader severely to task for his attitude. "We have no desire," it says, "to continue a controversy that was the reverse of pleasant to ourselves, but we are compelled to say here that-STr Joseph Ward's explanation of the reasons that induced him to intervene in the waterside wokr- ' era' strike and make a sensational speech

on the floor of -the House is atlogether unconvincing. . We were" in Wellington at the time of the unfortunate' occurrence in Post Office Square, and have no doubt whatever but for the firmness" of the authorities and for the strong measures adopted by the Ministry, in respect to which the Minister of Justice has never yet received his proper meed of public acknowledgment, what was a very ugly business would have developed into a riot that might have been followed by serious damage to property, and even loss of life. We, like many other residents from the south, were on the very edge of the crowd which the 'specials' dispersed, and compared notes at the time with men who are neither given to exaggeration nor" apt to 'lose their heads'; and their testimonies bore out the opinions expressed in the columns of this paper the next day, and are worth pondering now that excitement has died down. With every wish to be charitable to him, we think that Sir JSseph on that day failed to make independent inquiries as to what actually took . place; made himself the mouthpiece of others.' distorted versions; and placed himself before the House and the country in a false light, leading to the belief—very widespread at the moment—-that his sympathies were with those who were causing all the trouble on the Wellington waterfront. His proper course was. to have sided with and to have thrown the full weight of . his influence into the scale with Ministers in their endeavours to uphold at every cost the maintenance of law and order at what was undeniably the most critical phase .of the existing trouble."