The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1911. SIR J. CARROLL’S CAMPAIGN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7848, 10 July 1911, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1911. SIR J. CARROLL’S CAMPAIGN

Tho speeches delivered by Sir James Carroll in tho South were models of vigorous, torso diction, bright illustration, and mastery of detail. At the outset he caught tho enemy “flagrante delicto.” It had attacked with misrepresentation, with pretence, with suppression, with exaggeration beyond conception, covering want of ideas with vituperation, and sheltering lack of facte under clouds of suggestion. In tactics there was not ono flagrant error but many, and each one of tho many Sir James exposed and buffeted. That Mr Massey felt the force of the blows rained on him by Sir James Carroll is clear from tho * statements ot oven his most friendly critics. Unhappily he gave no sign of any chastening effect. Take the case of the loans and tiioir expenditure. He had founded a charge of extravagance on the eightyoue millions of indebtedness. Caught by Sir James and exposed as a critic perilously near, by reason of exaggeration, to the lino of tho unprincipled, ho reiterates tho charge though his eighty-one million reasons have by bis own confession been reduced by fiftythree millions. Further details are unnecessary hero. Enough that Mr Massey was proved to have misrepresented a system of investment as a reckless piling up olf Isans after tho manner of the nations whoso loans woro raised exclusively to burn away in smoko. In his retort he did not stop at protending to keep his charge founded on tho original premises, but wont on to make a fresh and more flagrant error in the matter of tho expenditure. Wo leave his inconsistencies of voting for loans ho disapproved, and for expenditure he thought useless, for we have dealt with those things, and Sir James has swept them off tho field with most masterly force. His reference to tho expenditure should properly have been accompanied by some sort of proof of tb© “uselessness” and the “extravagance” ho spoke of, but there was not a tittle c any sort of evidence. We may remain that the other critics of this alleged extravagance are in the same boat, for they never even hint at a single fact for the pointing of their lame and impotent conclusion. Their charge is in fact answered by the admissions of the Opposition men themselves, who justify tho votes they gave in what they term the scrambles for tho spoil. But these all pale into insignificance before tho final flagrancy of the local government pretence. Sir James caught thorn there with a dear proof of their connection with tho party which made tho old provincial days hideous with logrolling. It.' was for this logrolling tho provinces were abolished, and Mr Massey has the assurance to make a bald proposal for a return to tb© evil of those days. There is another relic erf the provincial past which Sir James did not forget. It is the wide monopolies of land which are to-day the trouble of the body politic, (jesting millions to copo with. It is to the provinces that we owe this monopoly, and tho Opposition are allied with the party which ruled in the days of monopoly and fought tooth and nail later on against all attempts at land reform, as Sir James took car© to remind them.

To return to tho public debt. Not content with entirely and radically misrepresenting the position of the debt, Mr Massey went on to the flagrancy of casting aside tho truth in the matter of the provision made for its extinction. Here he repeated the oft-exploded declaration of the certain “collaring” of the sinking fund, but Sir James reminded him that it is not possible to collar anything which is tied up for specified periods in the hands of mortgagors. There is no sense in parrot cries oven when they are repeated after proof of their absurdity. Another imposition on the public credulity exposed by Sir James was tbe Opposition treatment of the native question. To the detail of Sir James Mr Massey had nothing to reply. Ho just reiterated with the customary brass. It is typical of the man who after spending a very busy political life opposing the policies of tho Government to the very last day of last session and making long references to their policy of the future, has the nerve to tell tho electors that they have no policy. It is also worthy of the party who getting together some shreds and patches from the ideas floating about in space, most of which have been acted on by the Government, plants these in front of the people as a “policy.” The blighting exposure of such tactics was the best stroke of the many delivered by Sir James in the course of his most successful campaign. That campaign baa answered the sneering ungenerous references made to Sir James Carroll by tho leader on the other side. They were inexpressibly shabby.