MR MASSEY AT CHRISTCHURCH. REPLY TO THE PREMIER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2669, 10 May 1905, Page 16

MR MASSEY AT CHRISTCHURCH.

REPLY TO THE PREMIER.

-" ' CHRISTCHURCH, May 2. ' Mr-^Cassey, Leader of the Opposition, addressed & meeting to-night in the Theatre Boyal, which was crowded in every part. The Mayor (Mr C. M. Gray) presided, and extended" a welcome to the speaker. Mr Massey was received with prolonged Upplauai on rising. He thanked the Mayor For his hearty welcome an"d .the reception he had received. After the misrepresentations .-made in certain quarters he had de- - kided. to address a Christchurch audience, - itnd he wished to deal especially with the ' Premier's recent speech, at Pahiatua. •Mr Seddon had- said, with reference to his (Mr Massey's) statement Teg miing "The Public Revenues Act, 1900," that it was possible to transfer the balance of one vote to- another, was false, i Mr Massey quoted from the act to show that moneys .may be transferred in aid- of- any other vote in the same class. As to Mr Seddon's statement that the Stafford Government had transferred a balance of votes in 1867, he said that the balances transferred were surpluses of votes after the particular work had been com--pkited. This was a different thing from the provision of the Public Revenues Act. It was quite true that the Waterhouse Go.ernnient had referred a dispute between the Auditor-genea-al and the Government to the Attorney-general in 1872. but six years afterwards, when the Grey Ministry was in power, that particular piece of legislation tad been, repealed, and so remained till 1900," when the Seddon Government, tofts everlasting disgrace, had . placed it on the Statute Book. The speaker then dealt with the policy and platform of Hit* Opposition oa .similar lines to his recent speeches. Referring to Legislative Council reform, he said his friend on his left, Sir John Hall, was the type of man that should be appointed to the Upper House. The reference to Sir John Hall was received .with much applause, and cheers were given for Sir John. Mr Massey, continuing, referred to- the_ Premier's statements regarding payment out of loans for repairs, renewals, and alterations of public buildings. <He said that whilst admitting that surpluses from the Consolidated Fund had been transferred -to the Public Works Fund, he believed that if the public accounts were properly kept, and if kept as a business an an keeps his books, there would be nothing to transfer. Dealing with the land -question, he showed .that a mistake had been made in repealing the deferred payment, .perpetual lease, and homestead systems and the substitution of the lease in -perpetuity. The present Government, by the introduction half a doze>n times of a lTair Re-nt Bill, had created the idea in jhe minds of settlers that the contract .Vntered into when the lease in perpetuity . .Jras granted was to broken. Regarding Ihe Premier's statement that he (Mr Massey) had opposed the land for settlements policy, he said that his parliamentary Record showed that he had taken every opportunity of insisting that the lands of bhe colony should be open to the p-eople of ihe colony, never J-ost a» opportunity

of urging that closer settlement should be promoted. There was plenty of room for improvement. In connection with the Land for Settlements Act, he did not believe in the compulsory sections of the act because- they placed too much power in the hands' of one man, the Premier. When it was necessary to take land compulsorily, a similar system to that adopted where eimilar legislation had been introduced should be incorporated in the New Zealand law, so that 6he proposal to compulsorily resume any estate should be submitted to the House, and if the House agreed to its compulsory' resumption it would be so resumed. This publicity would prevent any wrong being done. The Premier had misundeirstond his (Mr Massey's) reference to the Advances to Settlers Act. He was quite aware of the amending act that Mr Seddon spoke of, but be pointed out that the amending act oSly provided 'for advances on land without buildings, and only to the extent of half the unimproved valueof the land. What he (Mr Massey) wanted waa an amendment of the act whereunder the wage-earner could get an advance- on building society principles on the house he 'intended building. The workers ought to be able to get suoh advances at a low rate of interest, and should b& able to repay the whole amount gradually. He advocated the adoption of the Ametrican law, making the- wife a legal partner with the husband in a house if owned by the husband. Ho referred to the fact that one of the Government departments last year lent £16,500 to one person. It would have been much better for the country if that sum had been lent in 33 sums of £500 each. Regarding the Premier's references to men on relief works being paid 3s 6d per day. he quoted from a speech made by Mr Seddon on November 18, 1887, in which he argued that wages should not exceed 4-s or 5s per day. He protested against th© Premier electioneering at the expense of the colony, and alleged that contractors to Government departments were practically compelled to contribute to ihe fighting funds of political organisations with which ihe Premier was connected and of which he was treasurer. He denied that the Opposition had obstructed the passage of th* Bush and Swamp Lands Bill, and stated that 55 Government m<?nibers had «peken on the measure, whilst only 26 Oppositionists had spoken on it. He stated "tJiat the policy of tli© Opposition consisted of a proper audit, of the public accounts and the repeal of "The Public Revenues Act. 1900." reform of the Legislative Council, establishment of a Public Service Board, economy and sound finance, local government reform, sinking funds in connection with futureloans, the option of the freehold to settlers on Crown lands, the independency of the magistracy, parliamentary business to be done in reasonable hours, and an equitable settlement of the -Native land question, and concluded a two-hours' speech, which was favourably received and frequently applauded, by urging the claims of the Opposition party to the support of the electors. Mr Massey answered a large number of questions, and was accorded a h&arty vote of thanks. (Feoii Otm Own Coeeespondskt.) CHRTSTCHt RCH, May 2. Christchurch is the home of Radicalism,

the headquarters of Socialism, and a. stronghold of Seddonism; and when I say that Mr Massey addressed the largest, the most enthusiastic, the most unanimous, and the most cordial political meeting that has been held here for years you will understand the triumph he achieved at the Theatre Royal to-night. Before -8 o'clock the building was packed in every part, and hundreds of people wer& unable to gain admision. When he appeared on the stage the Leader of the Opposition was received with a prolonged burst of applause. Every pause in his speech was punctuated with cheers ; and when he closed, and again when the motion of thanks was proposed, the plaudits of the enor'n.uis audience- were deafening. The meeting vas a political upheaval of a startling value — a result beyond the hopes of his most enthusiastic supporters. Speaking after ihe meeting, Sir John Hall declared that it »vas the best fighting speech he had ever heard in Canterbury, and that aptly describes it. The meeting was not carried away by Mr Massey's eloquence — he is no master of rhetoric, — but it was convinced by his arguments. Mr Massey dealt first with the policy of the Opposition, elaborating at considerable length the planks he has already innovated. The audience followed every plank with enthusiastic cordiality, and it appeared to realise that nere at last was an hoaest reformer, and that the rule to which it had been so long subjected was coming at last to an end. The mission of the Opposition, Mr Massey convinced them, was to liberalise, to reform, and to uplift the polities of this country, and there wtas not a dissentient note in the whole assembly. He dealt first with the Public Revenue? Act, driving home his arguments with the sledge-hammer of fact, and at every point his hearers shouted their satisfaction. The " £40 steal," the stultification of the Auditor-general, the want of parliamentary supervision of the three great departments of State — the Customs. Railways, and Lands — were all dealt with incisively and with the most telling effect. Next Mr Massey passed on to the Legislative Council, and by this time he had the meeting fairly in his grip. The attitude of the Premier, his inconsistency, and his beating-up of the party to prevent the passage of the reform bill brought down by ■a private member made the audience roar with laughter. Then in order he touched on the Public Service Board, finance, the land question, and several other points in the Opposition platform. Perhaps his most remarkable triumph was in connection with the land question. This is said to be the centre of the Land Nationalises, and here their party has its strongest organisation and most representation in Parliament. The meeting listened to him with the most patient sympathy and approval. There was no dissent, and the most hearty and spontaneous applause followed his remarks. The latter portion of the speech was largely a reply to Mr Seddon at Pahiatua. How complete that reply was a perusal of the report will show, but it will not show the effect it had upon a.n already excited audience. When, in reply to the Premier's remarks about the 3s 6d per day paid to men on co-operative relief works in 1887, Mr Massey quoted from Hansard a speech by Mr Seddon thai bhe wages of suoh men shotild not exceed 4e and ba per clay, the audience vflcfce.4 }vj£h

laughter. His condemnation of the Mapourika picnic and the travelling allowances drawn by the Minister in charge of it drew shouts of shame from the audience, and when he went on to describe the spoil to victors "policy of the Government, <aid to refer to the Premier's northern speech, in which Mr Seddon said it was impossible to look with an equally kindly eye on constituencies which returned Oppositionists to Parliament, cries of " Tammany " rang through the building. But perhaps the most- amusing incident of the whole meeting occurred near its close. When Mr Massey was answering questions one was handed up by a prominent Government supporter on the back of a telegraph form, and instead of reading it the Mayor, by mistake, read the telegTam. It was from the Premier, advising the recipient to by all means give Mr Massey a tura. The wrath of the questioner at the disclosure of the contents of the .telegram, and the humour of the situation, was too much for the audience and speaker, and tre building resounded with roars of laughter. The- telegram was a perfectly genuine one, and Mr Seddon will probably have something to say to his indiscreet supporter for disobeying his instructions .-md for giving him so completely away. The demonstration was a unique one, move particularly as Mr Massey has none of the arts of the orator, and relied for his effects on no rhetorical declamation. The Opposition movement has received a great fillip in Canterbury by the speech, and tho party is more enthusiastic and confident than it has ever been during the past 12 years.