THE OPPOSITION AND LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13032, 24 November 1905, Page 5

THE OPPOSITION AND LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT.

COMPULSORY PURCHASE QUESTION. • STATEMENT BY DR. BAMFORD. Speaking at St. Andrew's Hall last evening, before a very large meeting, Dr. Bamford, Opposition candidate for City East, said he desired to refer to the Opposition - ■ demonstration in the Opera House the other evening, and to misrepresentations that had ■ been circulated since. A statement made • by Mr. Massey, Leader of the Opposition, - had not been fully given in the condensed reports in the press, and opportunity had i been taken by the Government side.to dc- ' liberatcly misrepresent Mr. Massey. He (Dr. Bamford) ■ took that opportunity of . correcting those misrepresentations, and he could assure his audience that his correction ■'was absolutely trustworthy. In reference 'to the Lands for Settlement Act, Mr. Massey was quoted as having said he did not \ believe in coinpulsorily taking land, and that it was a wrong principle that one man should have the right- to say to another, "I am going to conipulsorily lake your land,'' ' and this was referred to as an instance. of hide-bound Toryism , The assertion actually made by Mr. Massey was that he ob- " jected to any one roan having the right to ' fay, "I am going to take your laud compulsorily," and if land was.to be taken,it ahomd-not be taken by the Minister, bub by Parliament itself. (Applaud.) . Instead of that being " hide-bound Toryism," said Dr. Bamford, "it was democratic and - Liberal." (Applause.) • There was a great deal of wire-pulling going on in connection ■with the present system of taking land, and it was perfectly right that if land was . going to be taken it should be taken by Parliament itself, in order that justice should be done, not only to the individual whose land was taken bat also to the State. Moreover, Mr. M&ssey had said he did not believe in talcing land eompuleorily, unless there was a need for it. He (Dr. Bamford) thought it only due to Mr. Massey and the party Mr. Massey led, that j the misstatements being circulated should be refuted. ' {Loud applause.) It was really impossible to understand the attitude of some of the Government supporters. 'Not" long ago a Government- journal-advised • Auckland members to subordinate all other considerations to railway construction. At" • that time the'balance of railways in favour of the South Island was 526 miles, and the ■ balance in favour of the South Island now was 536 miles, ' but that same paper told peopje now that the' expenditure in the two islands was not' excessively disproportionate. (Laughter.) This was an example of how Government supporters arid papers were reduced to misrepresentation to bolster, up ' ii.:!... -