THE DOMINION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13673, 14 February 1908, Page 7

THE DOMINION.

I Six Joseph Ward advanced a novel idea, for ousting the unwelcome Chinese by driving him out of the vegetable-growing business by the simple expedient of pitting against him cheap prison labour; but for

the." rest he preferred to confine himself to generalities, Ev<in when he touched on the Arbitration Act he did so merely to demonstrate its effect on the cost of living, and left the Dominion as much in the dark as ever regarding the intentions of Ministers in the matter of amerding legislation. One of the most interesting portions of the address was the lengthy dissertation upon Socialism, Conservatism, and the position of the Government with respect to those conflicting creeds. We imagine that the Attorney-Genera! had a share in the preparation of this part of the speech. If the Premier had relied more upon his mother wit and less upon the nebulous rhetoric of his colleague, be might have done himself and the country some real service. As it is, we fear that he has not told us what he really thinks of State Socialism, nor what principles really guide him in practice. "We are not," he said, " revolutionary socialists. We are not of any revolutionary school. Nor, on the other hand, are we hidebound individuals, who look upon State action and enterprise as hateful and pernicious." Left to himself, the Premier might have followed up this statement with something useful and informative. But his colleague, torn between lovo and duty—his love of abstract argument and his duty of assisting to write a platform speechwent on to a rare confusion of ideas, ana found himself in the end proving nothing more inspiriting than that the Government's aim is amazingly lofty, and that the Government is determined to do right. He believes that " every legitimate effort on sound practical lines" should be made to help everybodj-, that«" we should do what is fair and right," that " by prudence in our legislation' industry may be protected against disaster. Of the excellence of this ideal there is no question. We all desire to do what is fair and right, and to be courageous and prudent. But can it be contended that this enumeration of the qualities of a perfect Government is of the slightest use to anybody? What is that which is fair and right?" How far can State action be extended within the limits of prudence? When does " effort'* cease to Re " legitimate?" On these points the Premier's dissertation tells us nothing. In so far as 1 we have a dispute with the Government over the unwisdom of extending State action, the Premier has left the quarrel exactly where it was. In evading the point at issue, the practical side of the question, the Premier can only have created uneasiness amongst the more thoughtful Liberals, who object to socialism, and who have hitherto the Government had laid down definite"*Eorders beyond which there should be no trespass. What is clear is that there are no borders in the Government's mind. Nor do we think that this clear suggestion of the Government's readiness to trim its course to any wind that blows will be' less disturbing to moderate men from its being accompanied by a firm declaration that the Government's policy is to do right in a general fashion, and act with the utmost courage and caution.