The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1912. THE SESSION.

Southland Times, Issue 17002, 28 March 1912, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1912. THE SESSION.

The Lyttelton Times twits some of the Opposition papers who have expressed the opinion that Parliament should he summoned to decide whether Mr Mackenzie has a majority or not with inconsistency in that they had explained the public that if Mr Massey won on the no-conlldence division he would be entitled to an adjournment of four or five months in which to formulate a policy and prepare a programme of business for Parliament. The quarrel between the extreme party organs is not our quarrel, but as this is a matter to which we have repeatedly referred the argument of our contemporary is of great interest to us. After saying that the claim made on behalf of Mr Massey was quite sound and that Mr Massey could not have been expected to meet Parliament before the end of June, the Lyttelton Times continues : “But now that it is Mr T. Mackenzie instead of the leader of the Opposition that is to take over the responsibilities of office, the very journals that were expounding the constitutional position one way are expounding it another. The new Ministry, they say, ‘will not be morally or constitutionally in a position to discharge the larger functions of an Executive,’ and therefore it ought to advise the Governor to summon Parliament at once in order to give the Opposition an opportunity to table another want-of-con-fidence motion.” It seems to us that the Lyttelton Times quite fails to appreciate the difference between Mr Mackenzie’s position and that which Mr Massey would have occupied had he succeeded in defeating the Government. The House in giving Mr Massey a majority would have known that it was virtually making him Prime Minister and giving him power to select his colleagues. Had Sir Joseph Ward been retaining the Prime Ministership the vote would certainly have entitled mm to reconstruct his Ministry in the recess and there would have been no obligation resting upon -him to assemble Parliament. Even if the »announcement that Mr Mackenzie had been selected to succeed Sir Joseph.

Ward had been made before the dici-

sion was taken the new leader's position might have been somewhat analogous jto that in which Mr Massey would have stood had lie obtained a majority. But when the House voted it knew nothing except that Sir Joseph Ward would subsequently resign. The Government’s majority was obtained by Sir Joseph Ward’s promise to that effect. Well then, it is surely absurd 'to say that the vote was a vote of confidence in Mr Mackenzie, and the contention is all the more absurd since Mr Mackenzie’s election to the position was by no means unanimous'and excited strong feeling. Of course the theory is that the majority of two on the adjournment motion was equivalent to a majority of two for whatever Administration should succeed Sir Joseph The theory is rather weak and it rather conflicts with what is known of the proceedings at the caucus, or the conference between the Liberal and Labour parties, as Mr 7oltch prefers to call it in his desire to preserve the strict independence of the ' Labour members. The, question to be answered is: Does Mr Mackenzie nossess the confidence of a majority of members ? The votes taken during the recent short session supply no answer to that question, and until it is answered Mr Mackenzie is not entitled to administer the affairs of the country. That is our contention, and quite clearly the argument of the Lytteitop Times does not meet it.