The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. {WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1913.} THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3105, 17 September 1913, Page 52

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. {WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1913.} THE WEEK.

•• Knnquam a’ind natura, aliud aapientia dixit.”— nature and good sense must ever join. So pa.

Sensible men evervwhere view with feelings akin to disgust and indignation the spectacle 'vlr'iZnl presented by Parliament lanunt. and which by a certain degradation of language is stvled a “Stonewall. T readers' of Miss' Mary Johnston’s brilliant - battle book “The Long Roll,” the contrast between the dramatic incidental Bui Run in 1861, that gained foi that Vir ginia-Scotch-Irishman, ITiomas Jonathi Jackson, the soubriquet of and the paltry proceedings m duriim the past few daye, will at once recur" For while throughout the strenu- | i Zl times of the American Civil War General Jackson and his “Stonewall brigade eminently played the mam, it is ' impossible to avoid the reflection that. the accredited representatives of the people ° f ; New Zealand who took part m the so f called “Stonewall” m Parliament prei eminently played the fool. It ;ourse, be argued that the °”=“ ial . f £ « lay with the Government —that U ® Massey had shown a little more tact, and had conceded something of what the Opposition demanded, the senseless proceedings which have made Parliament a 1 laughing stock might not have eventuated. This, of course, is but assumption; cjrcumstances would seem to show that the Opposition, unable to sustain an intelligent criticism of the Governments pohey ijd measures, and thus fulfil their legitimate “function, determined to assert themselves on the lowest possible political plane, with the result of turning what should be a Legislative Chamber into a positive bear garden or worse, ine , ostensible reason for setting up on Friday ' afternoon this “scientific Stone wall’ although where the science comes in it it difficult to determine —was the failure on the part of the Government to produce, and lay upon the table, the annual report of the Inspector-general of Mental Hospitals. Even admitting that- it was a legitimate plea on the part of the Opposi--tion that they ought not to be expected to pass the ‘ vote for the estimates of expenditure providing for the administration of the mental hospitals in the . Dominion, it is evident from the report of the discussion—if the folly and trifling that ensued deserves such designation f that Mr Russell, Mr Isitt, Mr Wilford, and the rest of the privileged jesters would have found some other equally flimsy excuse for their obstructive tactics. It should be sufficient to remind the Opposition members that their purpose in Parliament is to oppose, and not to obstruct, and that the people have little patience with behaviour which has such Mostly and vexatious consequences. Members are sent to Parliament by the people to- transact the business of the country, and it is a pitv that the forms of the House should • lend themselves to so Bcreaming a farce as that which Wellington has just witnessed. It should surely be possible to preserve to the Opposition their rights and privileges in regard to criticism, without permitting any member _to import into the conduct of Parliament a mode of procedure which would not be permitted in any other serious and sane Assembly. Latitude in respect of playing the fool is—within certain limits—conceded to university undergraduates at the time of their annual carnival, but only because they are irresponsible persons whom no one thinks of taking seriously. For responsible legislators to descend to siich conduct is the worst of examples, and it is be hoped that the untoward incident to which we have referred will provoke such an expression of popular disapproval as shall effectually dispose of any further exhibition of “Scientific Stone- . walling” during the present session. Cecil Rhodes’s well-known words “So little done, so much to do,” may with advantage be impressed upon legislators on both sides of. the House. Already there are signs of a protracted session, and stupid obstruction, besides making for further protraction, has the effect- of so weakening members physically as to render them unfit for their work. And as it is the chief concern of the country that all legislation shall be properly considered and . placed upon the Statute Book in the most effective and efficient form possible, it will be well for the Opposition to quit playing the fool, and to resolutely determine to play the game. To stiffen the irresolute in such resolution we venture to quote a verse of Scripture, since Biblical allusions in Parliament are—possibly in consequence of the Bible-in-schools campaign—becoming increasingly the fashion:—“When I was a child I spake as a child. I understood as a- child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

It is impossible altogether to avoid the impression that the absurd Sir .T soph and useless obstructive tacWar.l. tics pursued by the Opposition during the discussion of the estimates of expenditure in Committee of Suimly in the House of- Representatives from Friday afternoon onwards—with, of coarse, the interval of the Day of Rest—has some connection with the acceptance by Sir Joseph Ward of the leadership of their party. In which case the omens can scarcely bo considered propitious. Sir Joseph has exhibited a degree of hesitancy in accepting the leadership of the Opposition, which cannot altogether be set

down to political coyness. There has been nothing of the ardour of a first love in the wooing; the negotiations _ have resemblance to- an attempt at an amicable re-union after domestic differences that led to a separation nearly, precipitating a life-long divorce. And in any such arrangement there is a tendency for the, parties concerned to seek their own individual well-being rather than the happiness of the other. There is no blinking the fact that the Opposition would not have made overtures to Sir Joseph Ward were it not in despair over its headless condition; and even with the access of Sir Joseph there is always the possibility that it may be more or less hydra-headed, no matter what is said and argued to the contrary. Nor can there be any reason to doubt that Sir Joseph Ward will sit somewhat uneasy in his- new seat; he has not the qualities which made Mr Massey so conspicuous a success in a similar position. The Prime Minister, in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his appointment, expressed the hope that “Sir Joseph Ward will enjoy the privileges of the position iust as I did, and for an equally lengthy period.” There is an element in Sir Joseph Ward’s temperament that makes it difficult to imagine him fighting an uphill battle for any protracted period. And seeing that the Reform Government is so firmly established in the regard both of Parliament and of the people, the cold shades of Opposition are all that Sir Joseph Ward can look forward to for a long time to come. We have previously expressed the opinion that Sir Joseph Ward has played his part in the serious side of New Zealand politics, and that sooner or later he will seek other spheres of public and political life. We may, of course, be wrong in our surmise, but it is a surmise that sticks. For the present, however, it is a distinct gain that Six- Joseph Ward should have consented to lead the Opposition in Parliament, and it says much for his powers of forgiveness and 'forbearance that despite the record of the past he should have agreed to occupy the position. It ia not every man who is able to work amicably and harmoniously with colleagues who deserted a sinking ship im the hour of political disaster, and who attempted to mate their loader the scapegoat fox the storm of popular disapproval that had gathered during his absence in the Homeland. Whether or no, under such circumstances, the Opposition can be a happy family, or whether the discords that divided them when in power will not further disintegrate them in Opposition, remains to be seen. At least, from a Government standpoint, and from the point of view of expedition of business. Sir Joseph Ward’s appointment must be looked upon as a distinct gain. The difficulty of leading the Opposition as at present composed consists in the fact that it has no political ideals, no political prospects, no stock in trade, but a heritage of disappointed personal hopes, gnawing the bosoms of disgruntled politicians. The only effective Opposition to a Government which, like the party led by Mr Massey, embodies all that is best and brightest in Progressive Liberal ideas, is a straightout Socialist Labour combination. But the time for such an Opposition is not yet, and should it ever manifest itself in this Dominion Sir Joseph Ward can never lead it. Thus while congratulating Sir Joseph Ward on the somewhat dubious honour that has been conferred upon him, we cannot anticipate that it will bring him any commensurate reward.

The Government made a. further addition to the consistent policy it’ Th* (Jnre nment has ever pursued in regard andtheLaaiHil to Land Legislation ?n the Bill recently presented to Parliament. It must never be forgotten that, thanks largely to Mr Massey and hie colleagues, the Socialistic craze* for the abolition of the freehold, constantly fomented by a small knot of irresponsible politicians, and which for vote-catching purposes was encouraged by the Continuous Ministry, was exposed and defeated. Since assuming power the Reform Government has been true to its pledges in regard to the preservation of the freehold as the inalienable right of the bonafide settler. The limitations of a mind obsessed by Socialistic ideas is often unable to see any distinction between the policy which exalte the freehold as the greatest incentive to the best kind of settlement, and an outworn and archaic system which would use the freehold right as pivot for the aggregation of land for selfish aggrandisement, or for mischievous, speculative purposes. The proposals embodied in the Government’s latest Land Bill make this distinction very plain and exceedingly clear. It is a practical measure in which the experience of the Prime Minister as a successful farmer is easily traceable, and it is not encumbered with any of the flamboyant impossibilities that marked a certain “Nail-your-coloura-to-the-maat’’ measure, everlastingly associated with the name of Mr M‘Nab. The evident aim and purpose of the Bill is to encourage the occupation of the land by bona-fide settlers on whose settlement eo much of the future of the Dominion naturally depends-. First and foremost the new Bill provides for the acquirement of the freehold by Crown tenants, who by the Bill of last session were not accorded this privilege. Thus the new provision is simply an extension of a principle on which Parliament has already placed its approval, and it gives consistence and coherence to the whole. Manifestly it is essential that Crown tenants of all classes should, in respect of the freehold, be placed upon the same footing. There may be some difference of opinion as to the terms upon which the holders of leases in perpetuity of settlement lands should be allowed to acquire the freehold. The suggested arrangement, even when elucidated by Mr Massey, is scarcely sufficiently obvious to clear the way for discussion; this is, however, a minor point which will receive best illustration in actual operation. The most important provision in the new Land Bill

is that which refers to the acquisition of lands for subdivision for closer settlement. The new plan endeavours to guard against undue appreciation of values consequent upon the compulsory acquirement of any land for subdivision and settlement, 'ihe landowner is to be given the alternative of voluntary subdivision, in place of compulsory sequestration, and there is also a third alternative, under which the land required for settlement may be offered for sale by agreement with the Minister in the terms of the provision in last year’s Bill. On paper the plan seems feasible enough, and likely to secure the opening up of sufficient land at reasonable prices to meet the demand for bona-fide settlement. If it be open to criticism, the remark that rises most readily is that the modus operand! hardly promises such speedy subdivision as will meet any imperative demand. But in order to secure equable treatment for all parties concerned, a meed of delay is probably unavoidable. The bitterest pill to the loudvoiced critics of the Government’s land proposals, and an effectual refutation of the ancient and hoary “Crusted Tory” style of denunciation, is to be found in the drastic provision which the new Bill contains for the prevention of any aggregation of land that can be proved prejudicial to the public interest, or to the progress of closer settlement. And along the same lines is a welcome proposal to give greater inducement to licensees Adf pastoral rune to effect improvements on the lands which they at nresent occupy. Summarising the Bill as a whole, pastoralists and agriculturists everywhere may congratulate themselves on the prospect of a Bill passing into law which, while preserving the privilege of. the freehold, grasps at the same time the conditions essential to profitable and permanent settlement. Moreover, it puts the ownership and occupation of land upon, a firm and solid basis, and disperses once and for ever the fogs and mists of anarchic socialism with which the subject was continually clouded during the reign of the Continuous Ministry.

The Reform Government, in a measure

hardly possessed by any Tlie Tank of previous New Zealand Xew Zealand. Cabinet, has the courage of its convictions. Not satisfied with firmly grasping the nettle of land legislation, it has boldly essayed the settlement of the affairs of tne Bank of New Zealand, a-problem rendered all the more difficult of solution owing to the mistaken policy of interference with the affairs of the bank indulged in by the Continuous Ministry. This is a subject that admits of considerable debate; for ■while on the one hand it is impossible not to sympathise to some extent with the woes of the original shareholders of what has developed into the foremost hanking institution in the Dominion, it cannot _be forgotten, that but for the prompt action of Mr Seddon at a time of sudden financial crisis those woes would have been much more deplorable. And while we must decline to support the Socialistic view which would transform the Bank of New Zealand into a State institution, at the same time it seems only right that the State, having stepped into the breach and saved the bank from disaster and dissolution, should be—along with the original shareholders—entitlea to a legitimate profit on its share in a distinctly business venture. Mr Seddon’s action was not prompted by any philanthropic motive to save the ekins of the shareholders, but simply because he saw that the financial position of the Dominion was in danger. In order to avert a panic, which must have precipitated disaster, and brought ruin to thousands, the Government came to the aid of the bank, which, that gulf safely bridged, has since prospered most amazingly. Naturally the shareholders, realising the value of their property, are anxious to relieve themselves of what they now regard as an incubus, or in other words they desire to buy the Government out. The aim of the directors of the institution is to gradually curtail the influence of the State in the management of the bank, and to confine the future Issue of shares to the ordinai’y shareholders. Particularly does this apply to the' guaranteed Government stock of one million pounds which matures next year. The Government, in the Bill submitted to Parliament, has meet judiciously, as we think, completely extinguished the hopes of the shareholders' in this respect. The Bill provides that the State shall retain its present preponderance of representation on the board of directors; that_ the one million guaranteed Government stock shall be renewed for another 20 years; and that the bank shall be empowered to increase its capital from time to time by the issues of thi’ee millions worth of new shares, this including a fresh creation of preference shares to be acquired by the Government. It is possible that the Bill may be amended ere it becomes law, for in any such system of dual control there are obvious weaknesses. It is important that the power possessed by the Government be not used to prejudice the rights of the original shareholders; there must be a preservation of equity in this respect. Still more important it is that no Government shall use its power to compel the bank to enter into obligations in regard to the underwriting or the floating of loans likelv to entail a loss on- such transactions. There is evidence that such pressure has been brought to bear on the bank during the reign of the Continuous Ministry. It may be taken for granted that the best way of preventing any repetition of such doubtful transactions is to retain in power the Reform Government.