The N.Z. Times TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1909. OPPOSITION FICTIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6922, 14 September 1909, Page 4

The N.Z. Times

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1909. OPPOSITION FICTIONS

(lira which ib (NconromiiD TSk "w»u,ui«ob IXCirXNDasT." BSTAIUCK2D 1841,

In quavering chorus the Opposition newspapers are just noiv bemoaning a myth. Someone lately invented an inartistic •canard about " the Government's intention to abandon its land policy," and so far as the exigencies of the mail service will permit them to gain inspiration from one another, our friends are using the fiction as the groundwork for a superstructure of accusation and mournful reflection upon the frailty of politicians. The method is delightfully simple. One "organ" will say something to-day about apostasy. To-morrow' another takes up the parable and with simple faith in the utility of "erroneous premise utilises comment as fact and iproves to the world that the Ministry has "surrendered."' Asininity has its limit, but, of course, if Torydom oan derive comfort from futilities of this kind it is welcome to indulge its passion for the pursuit of will-o'-the-wisps. The chimerical character of the choristers' lay is quickly determined by one question: What member of the Ministry has announced the intention of the Government to abandon iEs policy? When any statement of that character is before the country it will be time for the electors to consider the matter, and from two points of view. One would be whether the step proposed was a right one and the other would involve contemplation of what was to be substituted. In the meantime it is a waste of time to violently debate the righteousness or otherwise of something Ministers are said to have declared, but as a matter of fact have not. It would be just as profitable to denounce the perfidy of the Government for its "intention to abandon the intention of maintaining the railways as a State enterprise." When our readers encounter allegations regarding the "intentions" of the Administration they will save themselves much disappointment by first ascertaining who it was made the announcement' and what he said.

The mock heroics of the Opposition newspapers are obviously intended to reach the electors of Rangitikei. the idea being that some of them are benighted enough to accept as true things that are transparently ridiculous. The talk about " abandonment of the Government's land policy " and reversion to " sound principles" is meant to imply some great fundamental change in the attitude of the Liberal party upon this question. Its basio prinoiplo has been to get the lands of the Dominion settled in the true sense of the term. The record' of its achievement in this direction stands as a monument to the sincerity of the effort made. The country is the better for it; the community is the richer. The demand for progress on the same course is as keen now as it was before. The need for courage by the Administration is as great as ever. Ministers are alive to their responsibilities, and it is mere moonshine to tell us that they intend to abandon the discharge of one of their main obligations to the people. No party which stands athwart the popular clamour j for land settlement could hope to survive the proof of its refusal to conTorm with the requirements of the electors. The history of the Opposition conveniently illustrates the truth of that proposition. It has opposed with virulent acrimony every proposal submitted to Parliament for the purpose of widening the pathway of the sei> tier to the soil. It has paid the penalty by wandering in the wilderness. Even now it can think of nothing betj ter to say than that the Government [contemplates forswearing allegiance to the doctrine of "the land for the people," and returning to the "sound" theories of squattocracy. Why should tho Government desert land settlement when its activities and experiments have met with such gratifying success? We get no evidence on that point. There are, however, a dozen reasons why the Opposition should abandon it* precious " policy," which has hitherto consisted of prophesying ruin and objecting to everything. One policy if [justified by sincerity and by the consonance of its broader aspects with thr opinions of commonsense men. The other is a burlesque. Any general dissatisfaction there may be at the progress of settlement arises from a feeling that the pace has not been accelerated. That, however, is not quite what tho Opposition wish to see corrected. If tho resumption of estates were abolished and the graduated tax

remitted it would bo perfectly satisfied with the progress of eventsIt is because the candidates for the Rangitikei seat who support, the Government espouse the freehold that the Opposition jumps to conclusions about tho "land policy" being jettisoned. Upon this question of tenure there are grounds for difference of opinion among Liberals as well as Oppositionists, and it is a parody on logic to assume that wdien a candidate for Parliament differs upon a dotail from the party he follows the party is therefore committed to throw overboard, abandon and desert the policy into which that detail enters. "When a leaseholder joins tho attenuated ranks of the Massoyites, are we expected to believo that such an occurrence indicates not only tho conversion of Masseydom to the leasehold but its abdication of all its weird prejudices in regard to settlement—its intention to abandon the subject altogether? If tho arguments applied to the significance of tho contest at Rangitikei aro to be taken seriously, tho intrusion of a leaseholder into tho Opposition must have the same momentous meaning as tho inclusion of a freeholder into the Liberal party. When, for instance, the Opposition at last sitting of Parliament publicly embraced without shrinking two pronounced leaseholders, were wo told by its " organs " that this meant apostasy by Mr Massey and betrayal of tho mandate he had received from the monopolists who are his masters? We do not recall such remarks. They would have been too thin for Liberal newspapers and too silly even for the exponents of Tory bigotry. Yet the parallel absurdity is perpetrated when the Government happens to bo concerned, oven remotely. At Rangitikei tho Ministry lias vory wisely maintained an attitude of striot neutrality, and has not attempted to '' dictate '' to the electors even by suggestion. The point at issue there is not whether a freeholder or leaseholder shall be returned. It is whether the electors of that district approve of the Government policy or not. Details are merged in genera) principles. If tho experience of time and the matured belief of the community indicate the advisableness of changing the party attitude upon a particular point, we would very much like to know why it should not be altered so long as the change was not ono which meant abrogation of principle and policy. The Opposition can amuse itself as much as it likes by gambols in the region of fancy, but it may be assured of one or two certainties: The Liberal policy of land settlement will not be abandoned; to a Liberal Administration will remain the task of completing what has been so well begun, and under no possible conditions will the people of New Zealand hand over the management of land settlement to a party they have rejected time after time at the polls because of its evil heredity and its persistent refusal to recognise that it is not tho legitimate "function of any political organisation to impose barriers against the march of settlement.