TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15 1896, THE VOTE OF THE “CO-OPERATIVE.”

New Zealand Times, Volume LVIX, Issue 3003, 15 December 1896, Page 2

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15 1896 , THE VOTE OF THE “CO-OPERA-TIVE.”

In the impotence* of their rage because b'f ; the failure of their plans, Oppositionists : have done little else since the election results were made known but pile contumely and insult on the devoted heads of such of the electors as they imagine voted for the continuance in office of the Liberal Party. In an ungenerous article the women of Wellington wore held up to ridicule, their work deprecated and their opinions and methods reviled. The insult has now been deepened, for we have them spoken of ili a strain that might bo excused in low-oaste journalism, bub certainly not in the case i of one of those organa of light and leading*, of culture and purity with which this Colony is said to bo so largely blessed. We are told, in fact, that at the late elections “ the needy or unintelligent section of the women’s vote was captured by political parasites of the same sex,” There is no need for us to advise the wives and mothers of Wellington to treasure up those words; they will be remombared at the proper time. But wo nevertheless enter our emphatic protest against this sort of political ruffianism* We may even be excused for indicating that the source is to bo found outside the office of the newspaper whoso columns have been given over for some time past to an inntience which is baleful and ih trhifch political honour has no share*

It is now something over two years sine© a series of complaints began to b© published concerning what was . the gross conduct Of the Government towards co-opOratlVe labourers. The gravest charges were levelled at the Labour Department, because of its alleged disregard of the claims of . co-operative VrOrki men, who Tvere led into taking in parts of the country privation was added #0 difficulty of maV* sufficient OiVfe cf the work to pay for food, ; toote, tOUls, &o, The Colony was warned that , the wives and children of these co-opera-tive workers were being maintained by the Charitable Aid Boards, ‘and the Government was told that the time Would come when these co-operative labourers and their wives would reckon With their deceivers* Just prior to the general elections, this same condemnation, in the form of National Conservative Association “ literature,” was circulated in every cooperative camp, and tho u men who had been betrayed” were invited to rise up add smite Seddonism hip and thigh, ttt tile Opposition journals it Was Confidently stated that nineteen-twentieths of the men on lha co-operative works and in the bush settlements only awaited the opportunity to pay back, with Interest, tho dobt. of injury they owed the Premier and his ooUoagucd. But what happened? In some of the co-operative camps tile men not only did not tote to Wipe out Seddonism, but polled heavily for the supporter© of tho niatt through whose efforts tho co-operative system canio’ into existence. So soon as tho facta became known, tho organtt of the National Conservative Association insulted these workers and declared that they had been coerced into voting for the Ministerial candidates. In one case a camp is mentioned whQt«S the Votes all went for the Government supporter; but it will be been on examination of tho numbers given that tho votes were divided, and that the candidate who had beSu accepted by the Government to do battle for them did not get a block vote. Had the latter been the case, there might have been , sonla excuse for the suspicion that the men had not been quit© free to Vote as they thought fit j but it it diear to any reasonable mind that, the vote having been divided, the electors at “ Wolff's Camp” exercised their votes as freely as any other electors in the Colony. If it had been a “ commanded vote,” it would necessarily have been given in a block for the candidate favoured by tho Ministry-. ,TliO riien At “ Wolff's Camp,” wo arO in a position to say, are ardent Government supporters. They recognise what has been done for them in tho face of opposition of the fiercest kind, and they determined to exercise the franchise in the direction of maintaining the rule of a party whose recognition of the rights of the workers has been a distinctive feature of their administration. We are asked to consider the claims of Mr Manisty upon the ©lectors of tho district, and to say if it is not reasonable to suppose that there was, at any rate, a single man who, could he have been certain that he might do so with impunity, would have voted for that gentleman?. We say unhesitatingly that, so far as the men in “ Wolff's Camp ” were concerned, Mr Manisty had no claim whatever upon them. They knew him for a Conservative and a Prohibitionist, and refused to have anything whatever to do with him or his politics. To say that these co-operative workmen were forced to vote as it would best please the Premier,‘is to utterly misrepresent the men themselves, and is a deliberate attempt to fasten an unworthy act upon the head of the Government. However, as we have already shown, such a contention must fail, because had it been a matter of coercion, the votes would all have gone the one way. Not content with these grave reflections on the co-operativo workmen and on the women who worked on the Government side in Wellington, a reference is made to the Civil servants which is, to say tho least, unjustifiable. These latter ore said to have stayed at home from fear of being suspected of voting against the'Government. Now, if any Civil servant desired it to be known that he was antagonistic to Mr Seddon, the most public |way in which ho could manifest that antagonism would bo to studiously avoid recording his vote. In a city like Wellington, with such a heavy poll, and with tho interests so divided and the issues greatly confused, how would it be possible for any man or woman’s vote to bo traced ? Tho thing is absurd; nay, it is worse. It resolves /itself into the using of the leading columns of a newspaper to wound a number of people who should have some claims upon our protection. Had an exposure been made of tho influences exerted in some of tho contests by tho owners of sheep stations where the polling booths were placed at tho‘homesteads, there would have been some show of reason in the proceeding. Take, for example, the case of one sheepfarmer in the Wjurarapa. district. Wo are in a position to state that while the men were engaged in shearin" the “ boss ” walked in and said : “ If any man here will not vote for Mr Buchanan, he can leave at once.” Oue man cut of all the shed asked for his cheque and left. The others, who could not afford to throw away their employment, stayed on, and on tho day of tho poll they were for the most part treated as dumb-driven cattle. The same thing happened at other sheds and in other electorates. To quote the words of the National Conservative Association mouthpiece—u Bread and butter must always bo of more moment to men so placed than the composition of a new Parliament, and to vote against their employer (and at the station) -could not be expected.”

THE COLONIAL LOAN. «Xks truth is awkward to some people on some occasions. 1 ' Thus our evening contemporary in the course of a laboured effort at proving that the names of those persons who tendered for and were apportioned the ,£500,000 local loan should be available ti the public in general and the post and its coutributor-in-chiof in particular. Wo shall show that the truth is extremely awkward for the Post. Will our contemporary say that the Government should make known the names of people who deposit thoir money in tho Tost

Office Sayings Bank, the deeds of settle* meat in the Pablio Trust Office, or the names of those who hold Kew Zealand Consols ? It would be just as reai6nable to demand these as to ask that the tenderers for a Government loan should have their names published. The absurdity or quoting the London correspondent of this journal to that the representatives of the sress were present when tenders were opened in London in May last year is apparent whenjitis pointed out that, though i tho amounts were stated, no names were J given. There could have been no objection to tbe press having its representatives at the opening of the tenders of tho half-million local loan, but the truth is that there are papers which cannot always bo trusted. It is even said that documents have been removed from departmental offices owing to the anxiety, of some newspapers to anticipate thoir rivals, and when this sort of thing is defended, as it has been, it is the safer plap

to protect tenderers and piovent their names being made public by refusing admittance to journals who may very possibly refuse to be bound by ordinary rules, ine tenders were opened in the presence of the Colonial Treasurer, tho AuditorGeneral and Mr Kemboi\ accountant. And yet our contemporary hints at l all kinds of unworthy conduct. Then, again, it is sought to be shown that tne Government has invested Stato Thuds in this loan, it is scarcely necessary to give this worse than atupid statement a denial, ■ but we may say that not the Public Trust; ' Office, tho Post Office Savings Bank, the I Government Life Insurance, nclr htiy other of the lending of i tho Government have taken a single • sikponco the local loan. It is th 6 very essence of dishonesty to ! bint at, and make statements about, what has been done by this or that Government department, when as a matter of fact there | is not tho shadow of foundation iqr any one j of these unfair and absurdly imsledding ’ hints. Wo/of course, Recognis'd the same bold, Roman hand Tn these “ Local Loan articles As In too * sinking fund seizures,” * and we may expect .a question in the 6 * Souse from the “ middle member for Wel- _ lington” on tbe subject. Having been beaten badly in hia other efforts- against the Government, he-is now changing his ground—and -with about the caffid prospect of success.