Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, MONDAY, OCT. 26, 1925. DISTRICT OR CAUCUS?

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LI, Issue 16869, 26 October 1925, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, MONDAY, OCT. 26, 1925. DISTRICT OR CAUCUS?

When Mr. Coleman told the electors, as lie has done at each of his meetings, that his party had a clear-cut plat - form to which nothing could lie added or taken away except at an annual conference, he gave them a very cogent: reason for not. giving him theii 1 support at the ballot-box. How can this district, be represented by a policy which is formulated by trades union representatives at an annual conference? Yet that is what is proposed, and Mr. Coleman is irrevocably bound to adhere to that policy or resign ids seat in the House —provided that the district is foolish enough to give him a seat. Can the electors of this district conceive of this annual conference giving careful consideration as in what steps should be taken to provide for the needs of Poverty Bay, or, for that matter, for any particular district? All flint conference ever 1m? considered, and all if ever will consider, will be how best to legislate in its own particular interests, and Mr. Coleman is asking the electors t o assist him in becoming a tool of the conference. Whatever personal claims Mr. Coleman may have to support he has altogether abrogated when he sinks hi? personality ’in his party. On a local body where he is free to express his own opinions, and where he is able to apply an impartial .judgment, his common-sense, and sense of fairness, may lie of value, but the moment he has to place himself within the unrelenting tentacles of the Socialistic octopus Which seeks to draw the life . blood from the country, then he cease? ! to be of value to the district, and may, in fact, become a danger. The very name of “district- representative” cannot apply to Mr. Coleman because, even were he elected, lie would be mi- ! able, in any way, to represent ' this j particular district, Mr. Holland made ; ihis (dear on Saturday night when he : said ilint, if Air. Coleman wore elected ! he would do iho greatest good to the Labor party. He did not suggest that the candidate would be of any value to his constituents, to the district, or t-f I the Dominion. Mr. Coleman would be j nothing more than a member of the Ptiri liamentary Labor party, and as such ho would be so tied, body and soul, to i his party principles that, the interests of his constituents, if considered at : all, would have to take second place, j Mr. Coleman has made this perfectly' j clear in all his addresses. He has

j made no claim to be able to represent | this district. He has given no thought ■ to its many Specific requirements, and I lie lias not, because lie cannot, pledged i himself to give any assistance to the constituency. As an individual lie lias nothing to propose, no objects in view for the amelioration of the disabilities of tho district, and, therefore, nothing to commend him to the large majority of the electors of Gisborne. He is merely the mouthpiece of the Labor party, giving utterance to the nebulous, but, nevertheless, dangerous programme of legislation advocated bv that party for one particular class of the community. His speeches reveal nothing of a broad Imperial outlook, nothing of general national importance, and certainly nothing of his individual desire to promote the welfare of this electorate. It may be argued, on the other hand, that Air. Lysnar plays too much on the first person singular, but that, surely, is infinitely better than for a. man to entirely sink his individuality' by' the abrogation of any personal opinions and convictions to become a mere cog in a party machine. Air. Lysnar’s very' egotism, if such it may; be called, shows that he has the courage.of his convictions, rind demonstrates his determination to allow nothing to take precedence over the interests of those by whom he has been, and will be returned to office, 'fake as one instance only', Air. Lyrsuar’s attitude towards the railway from Napier to Gisborne. Mr. Lysnar, through his reservation of the right, to criticise, lias been in a position, every time railways have been mentioned in the House, to urge the claims of this district. No opportunity has been allowed to pass’ when ho could remind Ho Government of its pledge. .Supposing Air. Coleman had been returned, how could he, be of assistance in this connection? ' Imagine AD'. Coleman protesting in the House against the duplication of the Lyttelton tunnel, an additional station for Wellington or the new outlet for Auckland. Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch are the strongholds of the party to which Mr. Coleman is bound, and he could not, if he valued his position, proclaim against facilities in those districts upon which his co-members rely for support. To do so would be to antagonise the majority' of the members of his party, which is his only Cjonairicrntion. There might be many direct ions in which Mr. Coleman would find himself in conflict between the interests of the district he would be supposed to represent and his ; party, Which would ho support? Obviously ho must forget the loyalty' that is owing to those by whom he would be ■ returned. To oppose his party' would I be tantamount to handing in his resignation a’s a member of the House, and, of course, the district would suffer. So it is that oven if he were

returned it would not he ns a ropro-.. sentativo of the district at all. He would be. returned by the electors, not to represent them, but to give added power to Ihe Socialistic party whose interest in this part of the Dominion is negligible. The generous treatment of this isolated district during the past few years has, undoubtedly, been very largely due to the persistent advocacy of its claims by Air. Lysnar. and it is not likely that the electors arc prepared to depose sueli an energetic representative for such a poor substitute. The district has known top much of neglect in the- past to permit itself to be reverted to its previous position of obscurity. Tts isolation demands that it should have as a representative a member who is willing and .able, at all times, to advocate, and. if necessary, agitate for those faeilities which are so essential to its march towards the progress and prosperity ii so rielilv deserves. If Mr. Coleman has any illusion that, the electors of Cisborne are going to bo'caroled into sacrificing their .just claims to become tools to holn build up a party whose objects are inimical to the district, the Dominion, and the Empire, then he Is likely to be a sadden and a wiser man after the poll.

M p . HOLLAND’ TO THE RESCUE. The efforts of the lender of the Labor party to bolster up Mr. Coleman’s chances are not likely to avail the candidate to any appreciable extent. Unlike most of his followers, Mr. Holland certainly espouses his cause with vigor and determination, but he must find it difficult to express with' sincerity such a narrowly sectional and chimerical policy. Mr. Holland made it dear that he was extremely anxious that. Mr. Lvsnar should not go back to Parliament, and supported the suggestion that if it was not Mr. Lysnar it would bo the Labor candidate. With his statement that the National candidates were finite in-

-i.io.Pfli s ihp issue fe’" nve l»Volr to Tt is not surprising that Mr. Holland would like to have such a thorn as Mr. Lysnar removed from the Oesh nf fho Labor pm-fv. and it must be clear to most people the* Hat -"-as 'he reason for his hn*t*- •'■isit to Gisborne. Mr. Holland’s smooch, \.-ac largely an appeal to nreindiee. pleuG. fullv scattered with allegations against Die Government. He painted the Government as the personification of gll that is evil, but ho failed dismally to show that the Labor party , was a reliable. specific against the evßo. if*. Holland, of course, could not hove te obtain support «ololy on tlw mvfhieal ounlifientions of his own party. b”t he shep-ed his lack of constructive abjlitv when he destroyed the structure of another without, being able to ron!n"e it with something better. His snoeeh. ns a resume of a policy calculated to be for the betterment of the country, will not appeal to thinking electors, because it entirely fails to' survive analysis and examination. Particilarlv is this so in regard to tho land policy of his party. An explanation of *llO land policy wn« supposed t« bo rri. feature of Mr, Holland’s speech, ft is true that ho spoke at length o" this snbleet, but. hv no stretch'of the imag-ination.-can ho ho °nid to Unvo explained it. and, in fact, he has done little more to dear Ho ohsom-itv of tlie policy than did Mr. Uoloinan, Mr. Holland did make it clear, however, that a Labor Government would not be content with possessing itself with estates exceeding £20.000 in value, *vti that the object of his partv wa° nothing more or less than nationalisation-. The question of how that nationalisation is to be brought about remains unanswered, as it always lias beau nr.-, answered. Mr. Holland went so far as to say that his party “does not. propose to interfere with the private right of an owner to sell to his own hover, ’ ’ but, in view of the manifesto issued by him previously, that, statement must have applied only to the so-called “immediate” policy. The statement in the party’s manifesto “that pri-vately-owned land should not be transferred except to the State.” cannot be reconciled otherwise with Mr. Holland’s remark on Saturday, night. Tt; almost appears as if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the audience. Mr. Holland made an absurd plea in support of the tenure which gives “the right of occupation and use.” He indulged in an involved analysis of what ho termed the “mort-gage-hold” system, contending that it was the means of oppressing the farmer and driving him off the land. His remarks might apply accurately: to a number of cases, but to hold generally that an encumbrance on. a property is necessarily a hardship is ludicrous. Doubtless most farmers dislike having to pay interest to a mortgagee, but what is tho alternative? If a farmer is in the fortunate position of having no mortgages ho requires to himself receive interest; on the capital invested. The interest must come in somewhere. Tf the land is leasehold the interest, is levied in tho form of rent.. Mr. Holland’s land policy is, in effect, to so alter existing conditions that instead of the mortgagee, or the private capitalist as he calls him, receiving interest, tho whole of the interest'should be paid, under the pseudonym of rent, to tho State. Whatever the system, it. still has to be paid, and tho burden upon the farmer is not lessened because tho levy is imposed in a different guise. ATr. Holland claims that the interest bill of £17,500,000 on occupied lands valued at £509,000,000 is a burden driving people off the land. Assuming that to be an unduly heavy annual burden, what is Air. Holland’s remedy? Ho proposes to nationalise the land, and, in return for the, payment of rent, givo the farmer the right of occupation and use. Five per cent, has been suggested by the Labor people as a rorasonable rental. Accept that figure, rind accept also Air. Holland’s figure of £500,000,000 as the unimproved value of the occupied land of the Dominion. The result is an annual rental of £28,450,000 for the land that is, under present conditions, paying interest totalling fl7.500.00o! tho figure still being Air. Holland’s. On his own assessments, and on lvis own arguments, Mr. Holland is going to relieve, the farmers of an annual burden of £17,500,000 by imposing the still heavier burden of £28,450,000. Could anything be more preposterous? Is it. any wonder that Air. Holland’s own colleagues refuse to support such a policy? The question of where tho money is going to be secured to pay for the land, must again bo raised, Mr. Holland having omitted an explanation. It, is not; necessary to recapitulate the impracticability of swell a proposal, but, it is worthy of mention that even if a Labor Government could raise a loan for .such a liair-braincd Scheme, the whole of the land of the Dominion would have to be pledged as security. Air. Holland and compativ would be reneging on their own principles by mortgaging the whole of the country. Tho one mortgage, wait hi be a great deal larger than"the aggregate <-f the existing ones, and the ‘annual burden on tho occupiers of the land would be over £HO,pOO,OOO ia excess of the interest now paid to mortgagees.

Such is the proposal Afr. Holland has the effrontery to try' and force down the throats of the. electors?, .The necessity for any alteration of the present system of tenure being based on an entirely false premisb, is' Tt surprising that Air. Holland neglects to explain the method of operating the proposal, or the. results of it if it yvero brought into operation? 1 The object iof the “usohold” tenure, according tb Mr. Holland, is to relieve.the burtlftnK of the farmers. When it is shown Hint the result would be to increase and not decrease that so-called burden is Mt, worth investigating the matter fprther? The very foundation of the system' is shattered with but a little' analytical investigation, and this being so any effort to build on an insecure foundation must result in a collapse of the whole structure. Apart from Ills denunciation of the mortgage system, Mr. Holland was delightfully, and probably delioetrately vague in hifc explanation of the .Labor land policy, and equally vague in his,description of the modus operand! of remedying, 1 the existing defects, the whole* schenie abounds in impracticabilities and inconsistencies, thq only A tiling that ; jrs made clear being that Afr. Holland ari/V his party Hand' for tho complete extinction of private ownership in lan/i. Next week it will be made-dear to Air. Holland that his vague and nebulous scheme does not appeal to the electors of the Dominion.. V s - ;