The N.Z. Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1906. MR MASSEY “IN EXTREMIS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6027, 11 October 1906, Page 6

The N.Z. Times

(PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1906. MR MASSEY “IN EXTREMIS.”

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE “ WBLLiEOV&a urcapswuEiiT.” established J 845.

In referring yesterday to Tuesday night’s debate on the Land Bill, we were obliged to reserve Mr, Massey’s speech for a more particular reference than* We could give it at the time. It may bo premised that the case against the bill'was. well put, although it would not be difficult to frame a much stronger indictment which could, of course, be answered, but the answering of which would involve a great deal moro labour than the Premier was called upon to expend in tearing Mr Massey’s speech to pieces. In the eyes of the leader of the Opposition, the old issue of the “freehold v. leasehold” for the Crown tenants is the issue to-day; but, as we have shown over and over again, that issue has disappeared, and is replaced by this position—Shall there, or shall there not, be a conservation of the State’s remaining lands, conjoined with a, better distribution of the private holdings of the* colony? It may bo admitted that the new issue furnishes us good a battlefield for the Opposition’s fury as the old issue. What we complain of is, not that Mr Massey made a had case in the now situation, but that he threw away his energy-hy fighting on the abandoned field. Unfortunately, his speech is calculated to deceive that section of the public—admittedly a small one—which still takes its politics from the Opposition leaders.

The first thing to strike a reader of the speech—when he has got accustomed to tho rhythmic recurrence of the oomminatory sentences which divide it into sections, or which, we should say, form the framework of a mass of muddled criticism—is the disingenuousness and sophistry of the leading arguments. What is to be said, for instance, of a case which is built up upon the innuendo in’ the query—“ Did he expect good settlers to go on second or’ third-class land, knowing that at the end of their first term of these socalled renewable leases every possible attempt would bo made to keep down the value of their improvements and to keep up what was known as tire unimproved value, with tho object of increasing the rent for tire second term?” Certainly, if we grant Mr

Massey the right to argue on these linos, and to predict such villainy as he imputed to the Government when he asked: ‘'Suppose a settler paid off 1)0 per cent., what was there to prevent Parliament passing a Koval nation Act practically confiscating the value paid in?”—if we grant Mr Massey his amazing postulates, lie can prove anything. But Is it honest to urge tho possibility of future Ministerial chicanery as -a ground for reject iug the bill? Perhaps members of the Opposition may believe what they say, but when they say things like these they place themselves in tho position of having to choose whether they aro to be considered dishonest or merely stupid. Wo leave tho choice to them, but sensible people will have no difficulty in coming to a decision when they remember that tlie Government stands pledged to au honourable preservation of all existing contracts, and that tho Opposition knows it.

There is in some nervous quarters an impression, sedulously nurtured by the foes of the bill, that the clauses providing for the Jimitation of land holdings will'rob the small farmer of his possessions. Mr Massey went as far aa he dared toward making this improper suggestion when ho declared that a farmer holding a property worth £15,000, and desirous of buying other properties for his sous, cannot do so, unless ho signs a false declaration and risks imprisonment. The Premier disposed of this absurdity in a sentence, but tho ignorant may reflect that Mr Massey is an honourable man, and accordingly decide that, although their own common-sense says otherwise, there must bo “something in it.” There is nothing in. it but politics, and wo are bound to say that such uncandid tactics are unworthy of tho leader of a political party in Now Zealand. In tho company of such criticism, there is nothing incongruous in tho appearance of the despairing production of an intending settler frightened away by the Land Bill, or in the declaration that “it seined to him that if tho unimproved value limit was enough for the man in the country, it ought to bo enough for the man in the city.” There may be room for some valuable economic argument upon this point, but. Mr Massey essayed no argument at all. How entirely absurd this kind of talk is becomes at once apparent if we put the converse case. Who, for instance, would assert that the permission to hold 1000 acres of rural land granted by tho original bill should ie extended to the urban landholder? Wo have made it clear, we think, that Mr Massey’s speech consisted of a furious fusillade of miscellaneous missiles,, and those who desire a goocl act upon tho statutc-l|ook will ho less inclined to smile at the impotence of this style of attack than to regret that the Opposition appears disinclined to give the' Government the assistance, of thorough criticism. There not one of Mr Massey’s arguments which will not be destroyed in the debate, but since their destruction will involve no criticism beyond the mere pointing! out of plain facts, his speech stands' as a wasted opportunity and a cloud of dust that is entirely regrettable. When the leader of the Opposition is already “in extremis,” the hope that his partywill do anything useful becomes wofully small.