Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16239, 24 November 1914, Page 4

The Opposition candidate for Chalmers repeated last night with a few variations, none of the'm based upon fact, the story which Mr Bodkin has told in Central Otago of certain negotiations, erroneously alleged to have taken place between the Minister of Lands and the Otago Land Board with reference to the disposal of the Omararna runs. With this aspect of the matter we do not at present propose to deal. We are awaiting the production bv Mr Bodkin of his supposed facts. Another aspect of the question has been raised by the statement by the Prime Minister that there is a defect in the law relating to the subdivision of the runs which, if it were not amended, as ho proposes to amend it, would allow absentee licensees to select portions cf the

sulxlivisiona. Upon this? point Mr Anstey, the Opposition candidate for Waitaki, has ■made an interesting comment. "Ho had," lie said, " urged both privately to Mr Mossey and in tho Legislative Council, that these defects sliould be remedied. .He even divided the Council several times when the Land Bill was before that body in 1913, but he was defeated by Mr Massey's majority." This is most amusing. The Government did not possess a majority in the Legislative Council in 1913. Consequently it was not Mr Massey's majority that prevented Mr Anstcy, when lie

"even divided the Council several times," from securing the amendment of the law that would, according to his story, have obviated the defects. The record in Hansard on tho point is highly illuminating. It was clause 48 of the Land Bill which, when it was before tho Council, provided that in the case of the subdivision of a run the outgoing licensee should have a right to select one of these subdivisions. To this clause Mr Anstey proposed the addition of a proviso to the effect that every license issued under the clause should be subjected to a residence condition, which, however, might be modified in the discretion of tho Land Board. The division list on this proposal is so much in the nature of a curiosity that we reproduce it;

Aye, 1. Anstey. Noes, 21. Baldoy Jenkinson Ormond Bell Johnston Paul Callan Jones . Rigg Duthio Loughnan Samuel Earnshaw Luke Sinclair George Mills Thompson Hardy Nikora Tucker This was the only division in the Upper House on the clause—to -which no exception was taken in the House of Representatives—and the majority against Mr Anstey's amoudment, so lar troni being "Mr Massey's majority," as Mr Anstey described it, included fourteen nominees of the Seddon-Ward Government, two of them being prominent members of the Labour Party.

The debate in the Presbyterian General Assembly on the Bible-in-ischoois questions demonstrated clearly that among .members of the Presbyterian ministry there axe differences of opinion concerning botlf the merits of the piatform of the iiible-in-State Schools League and the methods which a .religious denomination or its governing body as justified in using in the furtherance of the objects of the league. The debate assumed liveliness over the resolution which urged members and adherents of the Presbyterian Church to support at the coming elections candidates favourable to a plebiscite on the lines advocated by the league. , As we have previously pointed out, this would mean asking people to support candidates agreeable to placing jointly before the public for simple approval or disapproval two 1 different issues which ought to be voted upon separately. In the meantime, however, it it the propriety of asking electors to •make the iiibie-in-Schools question in any way a test of the qualifications of a parliamentary candidate that calls for criticism. The Bible-in-State Schools League, with its " blue card," has been prepared to go to the extreme in this matter, advising its supporters to vote for no candidate who did not fulfil the requirements of its test of eligibility. The resolution that wa3 brought forward in the Assembly last week shewed a "watering-down" of the league's admonition to its flock, but as an attempt to instruct members of Presbyterian congregations it was definite and narrow enough. Thanks to the spirit shown by a small but vigorous minority, it was finally supplanted by an amendment making a general recommendation to Presbyterians " wherever possible to give the issue due prominence at the poll." This is rather less objectionable as an expression of the voice of such a body as the Presbyterian General Assembly, but the justification for the Assembly thus endeavouring in any way to instruct the electors or a section of them as to where their political support ahould be directed still remains open to question. As Professor Hewitson pointed out, this sort of thing tends to introduce the Church in the role of an electioneering agency. If the Pres= byterian Church, or any other Church, once identifies itself with efforts to influence votes at a general election there is no telling where it may stop. Elections and politics do not come within what is regarded as the particular province of the Church. The words of Professor Dickie are very much to the point:— " When the Church assumes powers for which it had no special aptitude and no special ability, as by interfering with political questions, it lost in spiritual power. '-' Some home truths that required utterance were spoken on the floor of the Assembly during the debate, and those who, being greatly in the minority, had the courage to express them, have the satisfaction of knowing that their views are endorsed by a large section of the laity.

The correspondent who writes to us this morning, taking exception to Mr Robert Scott's assertion that Sir John Hall introduced manhood suffrage in New Zealand and that Sir Harry Atkinson laid the foundation of Liberalism in this country, is, we are sure, not desirous of doing less than justice to the memories of those statesmen. It is, of couise, perfectly true that Sir George Grey was the champion of manliood suffrage, but it is not less true that it was by a Government, of which Sir John Hall was the Premier and Sir Harry Atkinson a member, that the extenison of the franchise to every adult male was successfully proposed in 1879. We may be reminded that tiie introduction of the measure that enacted manhood suffrage was the outcome of an agreement that was entered into between the Hall-Atkinson Government and certain members representing Auckland constituencies, but, whatever may bo said as to the terms of that compact, the fact that it was under a Bill introduced by Sir John Hall that the franchise was extended to comprise manhood suffrage is indisputable. As this legislation was passed 35 years ago it is more than probable that the majority of electors of the present time, not possessing the knowledge which our correspondent enjoys, may not be aware of the extent to which a Government that is frequently as a Conservative Government contributed to the laying of "the foundation of Liberalism" in this country. The truth is, however, that just as the Ballance Government was responsible for the legislation, long advocated by Sir John Hal), under which the franchise was extended to women, the Hall Government was responsible for the enactment of manhood suffrage previously championed by Sir George Grey.

Mr. H. D. Bedford is usually so earnest a platform speaker that he is not lightlyto be suspected of humour in assisting at so solemn an undertaking as the presentation of the case for Labour. Yet some of his remarks on that subject are so difficult of digestion at a first reading that ono is prompted to read them a second time with the idea of discovering the joke. Mr Bedford tells us that many misapprehensions exist in regard to the Labour Party. It has been misunderstood, it seems. It is believed to be fostered by predatory instincts, to promote discontent and unrest, and to advocate violence and strikes, whereas : t is guilty of none of these things. The public is invited to erase these false impressions from its mind. Perhaps the public, dazzied with this picture of the Labour Party arrayed in spotless white j>eaoefully intent on using its newly discovered woajxms, the ballot box and "all constitutional moans," will make the

effort a.skod of it. But it will hardly succeed. Memories and experiences cannot be banished at a moment's notice. Possibly Mr Bedford lias been referring to a select and reasonable .section of the Labour Party which be knows to be thoroughly well-behaved and, according to its own lights non-predatory, but reservations of this kind do not harmonise with his general statements. For electoral purposes the Labour Party is a comprehensive organisation, including candidates and supporters of various shades of opinion. We arc not hearing very much just now of the United Federation of Lalwur and the Social Democratic Party. The tempestuous voice that roared so laud when tho great strike was in full blast has died away to an uftdertono in the meantime. There is a politic quietude in the air. Now we are asked to banish that silly notion that the Labour Party had ever any predatory instincts, ever fomented discontent, strikes, and [violence. It is too late ! Out cf their own mouths so-called Labour leaders in our midst have condemned themselves not once but a hundred times, hopelessly and irretrievably. The agitator of the "Bed Fed.'' brand does his worst in the cause of Labour, and his voice is only temporarily modulated to a minor key. But in the meantime, it seems, we are to awake from the bad dream of a violent strike conducted by ''Red'' Federationists and to contemplate tho blessed spectacle of the wolf lying down with the lamb, or something skin thereto, as pictured by Mr Bedford.