The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1913. BOMBASTES FURIOSO

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8482, 17 July 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1913. BOMBASTES FURIOSO

The speech of the Prime Minister in the Addrcss-in-Reply debate was more calculated to excite commiseration than to command admiration. It was Worthy of the parish pump politician rather than the leader of a Government. There was neither breadth nor depth in the deliverance, and certainly no imagination, while it did not even possess the saving grace of humour. Briefly, it might be described as a screeching and semi-hysterical denunciation of “ Reform’s ” political opponents, flavoured with a bitter onslaught on that section of the press that has ventured to criticise the administration of the Government, and ft was delivered with a frenzied rapidity of utterance that deprived it of any impressive effect, even on “ Reform’s ” own followers. Mr Massey is certainly not happy in his new position. He lacks the dignity and Strength that distinguish a leader amongst men. Impatient and intolerant of criticism, he is incapable of arguing a proposition soundly and logically, and relies for his success in debate upon wild and reckless assertion and vituperative abuse of his opponents and their cause. That is why the speech, in comparison with the oratory that the political history of this country has recorded on similar occasions, inspired only the feeling of saddened commiseration.

It must be conceded to Mr Massey that the powerful indictment framed by his opponents had placed him very much at a disadvantage. There was so much to explain away, to extenuate, and to justify. Mr Massey lacked not only a good cause but also the casuistical skill that was necessary to him if ho expected to prove that black was white. It is possibly a concession to his frankness that ho did not attempt to prove anything. Nevertheless, he was not by any means candid. He did not confess, as he might; have done, that there was a very great deal of truth in the charges that had been made against his administration. He did not lamely plead, as the Hon. VV. Fraser and other Ministers have done, that he and his colleagues were only beginners, having been in office barely twelve months, and that they hoped, if the critics were patient and tolerant, to do better in the future. That certainly is not Mr Massey’s style. On the contrary, he resorted to the policy of bluster and bluff. “Lies, lies, lies—all lies,” was practically his answer to the damning indictment that had been framed against him, but it was an answer calculated to carry neither weight nor conviction. These charges cannot be all lies. The replies that have been given to them in detail, by Mr Massey himself and his colleagues, show conclusively that they are not. Therefore, it goes without saying that they cannot be so easily disposed of. The facts are before the country, and cannot be disputed, and it is for public opinion to judge between “Reform” and its accusers. “ Reform” stands convicted before the people as a party of political bluff, of broken promises, and of unblushing insincerity. .The assertion of superior finance was reiterated once more with shameless audacity. Where is the superior finance when the Government is borrowing money in London at the same rate as Sir Joseph Ward was lending it in small amounts two years ago? Whore is the superior finance in loanraising operations that condemn us for thirty and possibly fifty years to the payment of the highest rate of interest that has been exacted from us for more than a quarter of a century? What financial ability is displayed in a loan-raising mission that ends in the humiliating confession that our envoy did not raise the loan at all? Ho paid the underwriters £30,000 to do it, and gave somebody £7500 to find the underwriters, and then left them to make what further profit they could out of the transaction. Superior finance, indeed! Superior humbug more fittingly describes the situation. Tho display of virtuous indignation with whicli Mr Massey repudiated tho alleged “dastardly slander” that his Government was favourable to higher rates of interest was another example of insincere pretence that is discounted by tho facts. If “Reform,” which stands for tho class that lives by letting money out at interest, was desirous of continuing tho system of cheap money created by Liberal finance, why have tho advances from the State lending departments been so enormously curtailed? Why has tho limit of advances been increased, as a transparent make-believe, when it is practically impossible to get a loan at all? If “Reform” was sincere in its asserted desire to give tho people the advantage of cheap money, the advances departments would not have been starved as they have boon. Settlors and workers and others would not have boon forced to go into the open market and pay 8 per cent, interest on sound securities, as they have been compelled to do, in comparison with the 41 per cent, that they were accustomed to when Sir Joseph Ward was in power. The assertion of greater economy is played out, in the face of an increased expenditure, but Mr Massey did not hesitate to parade it again for what it is worth. In tho light of What wo know now, when there is unparalleled extravagance in the consideration shown to certain favoured highly-paid individuals, and a determination to keep the earnings of wage-earners to as low a level as possible, it is worth absolutely nothing. There is no ueces-

sity to go beyond tho sinecures tli.il are being conferred on tlu> Royd Garlick family, without oven the formality of inviting applications, to exemplify our argument. If a further illustration of the truth of what we say is necessary, it is sufficient to point to the fact that JJoOOO a year is to he paid to a gentleman who is described as a cicvcr advertising and passenger agent to manage our railways. Three thousand pounds a year is a considerable salary. It is double the amount that is paid to the Minister for Railw.lys, or a Supreme Court Judge, and is far in excess of the salary of the Prime minister himself. And yet, with examples of prodigal waste on every hand, except amongst the most poorly-paid and hardworking branches of the public service, we aro told there is no extravagance. This is pure fiction. 'The policy of “Reform’* in this direction is certainly “To him that hath shall bo given, and from him that hath not shall bo taken away even that which he hath.”

It was reasonable to expect that Mr ■Massey would have endeavoured to set up some justification for his slower and somewhat halting policy of land settlement. But he did not attempt to do so. Ho condemned certain purchases of the previous Governments, and boasted of the purchases ho had made, but he did not tell the House that the worfet of the land bought by the Liberals was belter than the best he had acquired within the snow-line of Marlborough and in other remote and inaccessible places where there is not the slightest prospect of success ful small settlement. Why did Mr Massey not give particulars of some of these estates he had bought, and the prices paid for them, and why did he not name the individuals from whom he had made those purchases ? This information would have been illuminating. Even while Mr Massey was speaking, he condemned tho system of buying estates for settlement, and yet he continues to pursue this policy, knowing well at the same time that tho only effective means of bursting up the great territorial estates is by means of an effective graduated tax. This, however, ho dares not impose, because tho sguatters who have placed him in power would not toler-r ate it. The power is with tho squatters, and not with Mr Massey. The method that “Reform” has adopted of evading tho examples of bad administration and undesirable policy is to characterise them as mares’ nests and to pass on hastily to tho next subject. This is how Mr Massey sought to make political capital out of tho Southland land deal, of which the last has not been heard, and which he was very careful not to allude to in his speech on Tuesday night. It was also how he dodged the awkward subject of tho expeditionary standing army, for service in any part of the world, which its author, the Hon. James Allen, no longer - ventures to treat as a mare’s nest. It was how ho skirted the scandal of the New Lynn leases, which has shocked the people of Auckland, who wore amazed at such a discreditable sacrifice of the public estate to the greed of the leasehold tenants. To describe these and other lamentable Scandals as mares’ nests, with an accompaniment of horse laughter, is not likely to allay the public uneasiness and carry reassuring conviction to tho minds of the people. Mr Massey knows that the ease against him and his Government is a strong one, and that ho has no satisfactory answer to the charges made, and therefore he resorts to the device of screeching vituperation at his accusers and endeavouring to swagger his way, with bluff and bluster, out 'of an incriminating and damning situation. It won’t do.