REFORM PARTY

Southland Times, Issue 20641, 13 November 1928, Page 6

REFORM PARTY

Reply to Critics SPEECH BY MINISTER OF FINANCE LARGE ENTHUSIASTIC AUDIENCE UNITED POLICY CONDEMNED One of the most enthusiastic political meetings held in Invercargill for many years was that in the Municipal Theatre last evening when the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, Minister of Finance, delivered a lucid, eloquent and telling address in which Sir Joseph Ward's borrowing proposals came in for trenchant criticism. From an early hour in the evening people began to flock to the theatre. By 7.30 p.m. there were very few seats vacant and when punctually at 8 p.m. Mr Downie Stewart took his place on the stage there were hundreds standing in the rear of the stalls, circle and "gods” while several hundred were accommodated on the stage. Outside the theatre a large crowd waited throughout the address which was heard most clearly through the amplifiers provided. The Minister of Finance spoke for two hours and the audence showed unmistakably the very warm regard it had for Dunedin's distinguished statesman. His initial appearance was the signal for a spontaneous outburst of applause which was followed by an equally spontaneous singing of "For he’s a jolly good fellow.” Although there was no orchestra to lead the singing it was not lacking in volume. Throughout his speech Mr Downie Stewart was given an attentive hearing. Interjections were not infrequent, but the Minister made no secret of the fact that he welcomed them and the applause which greeted his replies left no doubt who scored. The interjectors were much less numerous than the interjections —the same few voices being responsible for the remarks. At the conclusion of his address a vote of thanks to the Hon. Downie Stewart and of confidence in the Reform Party was carried by an overwhelming majority. Mr. John Gilkison was in the chair and on the platform with him were Mr S. Morell Macalister, Independent Reform candidate for Invercargill, Mrs Macalister, Miss Stewart, Colonel and Mrs Hargest and members of the executive of the local branch of the Reform Party. Mr Gilkison in introducing Mr Downie Stewart said that he felt that the huge audience paid a splendid tribute to their visitor. Mr Downie Stewart's father had a distinguished political life for many years and it was more than a coincidence that his son should succeed him as member for Dunedin West. As citizen, Member of Parliament, soldier, Member of Parliament again and as Cabinet Minister Mr Downie Stewart deserved well of his country. (Applause). "I am sure,” said Mr Gilkison in conclusion, “that there is no need for me to appeal for a fair and attentive hearing for our visitor on his first appearance in Invercargill.” Opening Remarks. “I am very grateful for the splendid reception you have given me this evening,” said the Minister, in opening. “You have made me feel quite at home, although I am a comparative stranger. I have met so many old friends to-day that, if I did not have a seat in Dunedin, I should feel very much inclined to stand for Invercargill, but I realize that you have a prospective candidate who from what I have read in the newspapers has very concisely, logically and conclusively expounded the party’s platform.” (Applause.) Mr Downie Stewart said he wished to apologize for not visiting Invercargill earlier in the campaign, but the members of the Cabinet had been somewhat disconcerted by the illness of the leader of the United Party and consequently had been diffident to oppose the views of Sir Joseph Ward in his own electorate while he was absent and unable to “take off the gloves.” It was now very close to the election and it was probable that most electors had made up their minds how to vote. Labour Opportunists. “In this electorate,” he said, “there is no Labour candidate, but as the Labour Party is the official Opposition I must devote a few minutes to them before dealing with other matters. The attitude of the Labour Party is mixed. They attack the United Party partly on its policy, but more especially to prevent any chance of its becoming the official Opposition. Yet on the other hand they secretly welcome the presence of the United Party candidates wherever the split vote will gain them a seat. Provided they can attain their main objects of gaining more seats by vote-splitting the presence of the United Party helps them. But to still further improve their chances they are on the soft pedal; they have hidden their official policy, watered down their land policy, trimmed on the defence question and the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. This is merely a change of front and not a change of heart. But what will it profit the Labour Party if they win—not the whole world—but a few seats in Parliament and lose their political soul ? I respected them more when they nailed their colours to the mast and fought for their real beliefs and their real programme. Now the Labour Party is merely a party of opportunism, catching at any straw that will gain them political support. Their latest cry is that they are the lineal descendants of Seddon and Ballance, which is a travesty of political history. Everyone knows that the chief political worry of Seddon’s last years of office was the revolt and breakaway of his Labour supporters. Although he threatened and cajoled them in turn they remained obdurate, and soon after his death the class-war socialists had captured the Labour movement. Their claim to now wear his mantle is mere political cant and hypocrisy. The United Party. “I come now to the United Party. I say nothing for the moment about its leader, Sir Joseph Ward, whose policy I will deal with later. Nor shall I refer to its new candidates, who are political innocents abroad as compared with some of the inner circle. But what is to be said of the chairman of their executive, Mr Veitch? He was one of those who helped to drive Sir Joseph Ward into the wilderness in 1911 and his present attacks on the Government are mild compared with the language he then used against his present leader. In 1911 he said:— The main plank of the Liberal platform was said to be the bursting up of big estates and yet after their long term in power land monopoly was still a crying evil. The only way to combat this position was by an aggressive policy and that of the Government had not been such. The wholesale spending of money —borrowed money let it be remembered —has had the effect of inflating land values to such an extent that the Land Settlement Act was now practically a dead letter. (At Castlecliff, Wanganui Herald, November 25, 1911.) Mr Veitch proceeded to condemn the Government (the Ward Government) for its exercise of political patronage and its bidding for support by voting the money spent in various districts. It was being said that if a district wanted money it ought to put a Government man in. (In Parliament, 1912, Hansard page 303.) We have come to a stage when the Advances to Settlers’ Act has broken down, or very nearly broken down. There

are many causes for its having broken down. One reason is tne fact that has already been mentioned —that cheap money has raised the price of land. Further than that, the fact of buying up of big estates and cutting them up has greatly increased the value of the estates adjacent to them. Political Moreporks. “It is difficult to imagine language more contemptuous and while I have always believed Sir Joseph has a kind heart he must also have a short memory if he will allow such disloyal time-servers to shelter under his banner. In fact, the whole flock of these political moreporks is trying to make use of the liberal tradition while ashamed to adopt the name of Liberalism, as they too well know the Ark of the Covenant of Liberalism has long since passed into the safe custody of the Reform Party. (Applause.) Indeed, one of their most brilliant members, Sir John Findlay, said years ago that he regarded the Reform Government as the true exponent of Liberalism in this Dominion. 1 call them political moreporks because, as you know, that bird has a plaintive melancholy and monotonous cry which is not unpleasing as long as he is far enough away and well in the bush. (Applause.) If they disclaim this classification of them in the realm of natural history I may describe them as political bootleggers who are trying to sell the electors some very strange dope. No doubt Sir Joseph Ward acted from a sense of duty in accepting their leadership. In fact he has said so himself, but I could wish that he had examined the brand and earmarks of some of his flock before gathering them into his fold. “I am glad that Sir Joseph Ward’s health has so far improved as to enable him to actively campaign. (Applause.) Here and elsewhere he has been received with great enthusiasm. That is a proper tribute to his personal popularity and his long service to this country. I therefore do not grudge him the enthusiasm as long as we get the votes. (Loud applause.) Past experience leads me to think that this will be so. I took part in the Tauranga by-election in 1923 and the papers reported daily that never before had such enthusiasm been shown as at Sir Joseph's meetings. But the votes told a different story and our candidate had a handsome majority. (Applause.) Going even further back the same enthusiasm was shown in 1911 by cheering crowds, but the final result was that the party went out and has been out ever since. (Hear! Hear!) Sir Joseph Ward and Labour. “By far the most serious statement made by Sir Joseph Ward is his open declaration that he will on no-confidence motions ally himself with the Labour Party to wreck the Government. This statement is almost more important than his borrowing proposals, and if the electors had time to realize its full implication I doubt if a single United Party candidate would be returned to Parliament. It is the first time in the history of New Zealand that any responsible third party leader has agreed to tie himself at the chariot wheels of Labour for the purpose of ejecting the Government. It may be argued that the matter is of no importance, that not sufficient United candidates will be returned to give effect to Sir Joseph’s purposes, but the mere fact that he would be willing to combine with the Labour Party is sufficient to condemn the whole United Party, except such members as have expressly stated that they will in no case vote with Labour on a no-confidence motion moved by Labour. I think Mr Wilford and Mr Seddon have emphatically stated that they will vote with the Reform Party and not with Labour on a no-confidence motion. “But. assuming Sir Joseph succeeded in his wrecking policy, he ought to explain to the electors what his next step would be. W’ould he support the Labour Government in power while it carried out its full policy of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. If not, what is his object in putting it there. If he finally decided to eject them would he then help to restore the Reform Government, and if so what has been gained. If he would not help to restore the Reform Government are w r e to have another appeal to the electors. It is incredible that Sir Joseph should be willing to produce political chaos if it lies in his power in view of his emphatic declaration only three years ago that the main object of both moderate parties must be to keep the Labour Socialists out of power. Indeed, he went further, and said that there were no vital questions dividing Reform and the Nationalists such as existed between Liberals and Conservatives in the old days, and he strongly advocated fusion. What justification has he now for playing completely into the hands of Mr Holland, who, for the last few weeks has been trying to engineer Sir Joseph into exactly this position. He will now have the right to make Sir Joseph walk into the lobby with him on every noconfidence motion, and the United Party will be merely the tool of the Labour Party. I believe even those electors who may have been persuaded that the United Party loan proposals are feasible will swing across to Reform when they realize that a vote for the United Party is undoubtedly a vote for Labour. Sir Joseph has put this beyond all question. The Seventy Million Loan. “I now come to the United Party policy. Its main feature is the £70,000,000 loan proposal. Apparently the party said to itself we have tried for some years, without success, to oust the Reform Party by saying the Government is borrowing too heavily. We will now try the opposite, and say the Government is not borrowing enough. But the joint effect of these two contradictory cries is that they cancel each other and the electors will arrive at the sound conclusion that the Government must be right in its loan policy. (Applause). I must repeat the criticism which I have already made and which has remained unanswered. Perhaps Sir Joseph regards me as a financial neophyte who can be ignored. But I have a duty to the country and my criticism should be answered. I need not elaborate, however, because Mr Macalister has dealt so effectively with the matter. “The easiest basis on which to examine whether Sir Joseph Ward can lend money without a loss is to begin by showing what our last loan cost as it was raised on very nearly the same terms as those on which he proposes to raise his loan, and later on to deal with the items of expense which he hopes to escape. Our last loan, which was issued at £94 10/- per cent, with interest at 44 per cent, yields the investor in interest £4 15/9 on the capital subscribed by him. But if allowance is made for redemption of the discount on issue, viz. £5 10/- over the period of the loan, the annual yield to the I investor is £4 19/8 per cent. The State has to provide in addition to interest the cost of redeeming over the period of the loan the discount on issue just referred to and also underwriting at £1 per cent, stamp duty and other charges. So that the annual cost of the capital received by the State works out at £5 3/5 per cent. In addition to the £5 3/5 per cent, there would also be for State Advances the administration expenses of about three shillings per cent. As Sir Joseph’s proposal is to raise at £95 at 44 per cent, it will be seen that the two prices are sufficiently near to enable a comparison to be made. Untenable Figures. “Neither in his original statement nor in any of the revised statements has Sir Joesph proved that his proposals will not cost the taxpayers a penny in either direct or indirect taxation. In fact, the opposite is only too obvious. He ought to show that allowing for the discount on the loan, brokerage charges, and administration expenses he can lend without a loss. But he admits there will be brokerage, which he says ‘would not be higher than one per cent.’ He also admits that the five per cent, discount means that he goes short of sixty million pounds by three million pounds. “A few days ago he tried to get over the repayment of this three million pounds by saying the investment of the one per cent, sinking fund would provide enough to pay this. When it was pointed out that this sinking fund would only repay the amount actually received and lent to farmers, and would provide nothing towards the three millions pounds he now says: ‘I never said

the one per cent, sinking fund was to pay off the loan. It was for the purpose of securing a profit on the loan.’ Well, if the farmer pays one per cent, sinking fund and yet finds his loan is not being paid off he will have something to say. if the statement means anything it must mean that the interest rate to the farmer will be 5:1 and his loan is never reduced. Still more astonishing is Sir Joseph’s statement that the three million pounds discount on the loan was not a loss but was ‘what it would cost the men in England who would let us have the bonds at 95.’ Now the whole reason why the English lender accepts 44 per cent, interest is that, although he only advances £95 the borrower undertakes to repay him £lOO. If he actually advanced the £lOO he would charge about five per cent, or more which is the market rate of interest. How then can Sir Joseph and some of his candidates say that the English lender will pay this five per cent discount ' In fact, in a statement issued on the first of this month, Sir Joseph recognized that the discount had to be paid by us and said ‘Now let us look at the loss of 5 per cent by issuing bonds at 95 on the sixty million pounds. That represents a loss of three million pounds on the whole of the amount I propose to borrow for settlers and workers.’ Taxpayer Must Lose. “The answer that Sir Joseph makes to all criticism is that he initialed and made a success of the State Advances Office, and therefore he will make a success of this new loan proposal. My reply is that the reason he made a success of the State Advances Office was that he never lent money through that office without a reasonable margin to cover expenses and show a small profit. My main difference with him now is that he obviously proposes to lend money at less than cost and that the loss must be borne by the taxpayer. There is no Chamber of Commerce or body of business men in New Zealand who will contend that the moneys can be lent without loss on the figures which Sir Joseph himself puts forward. My next point is that the proposals of the United Party provide loan money for only two items, namely, loans to farmers and workers and railway construction. But where is it to find the money for hydroelectric works, immigration, schools and others items, all of which we find out of the loan moneys we raise? The latest suggestion from Sir Joseph is that he will provide these out of surplus revenue. In support of this he says that between 1891 and 1911 he transferred £8,030,000 from surplus revenue to Public Works. As a matter of fact during more than half that time Mr. Seddon was Minister of Finance. In any case eight million pounds in 17 years would not cover the programme he has outlined. “But the chief complaint a few years ago was that large surpluses meant that the taxpayers were being forced to provide funds for capital expenditure. The fact that recently the Budget has not produced large surpluses has been favourably received as evidence of a correct financial balancing of accounts. In any case Sir Joseph cannot get enough surplus revenue to carry out capital works without increasing taxation, whereas, on the contrary, he offers large reductions of taxation at the same time as he proposes heavy extra expenditure in social services, subsidies to secondary industries, etc. A Startling Statement. “Another startling statement by Sir Joseph,” continued the speaker, “is that I borrowed £6,000,000 in the last three years to pay off war debt, and he said no country should borrow to pay off a loan. Of course such a statement is entirely without foundation and no loan moneys have been used to reduce debt. The war debt has been reduced in the last 6 years by about ten million pounds out of reparation moneys, interest on capitalized sinking funds and surplus revenue. This country is already borrowing annually as much as it is wise to borrow if we wish to maintain our present high credit. Sir Joseph seeks to justify his six to eight million pounds a year for farmers’ finance on the ground that the country is starved for money and the State Advances office has ceased to function. Why, then did he seek to reassure the public a fortnight ago by saying “This is about the same amount as the Department is lending annually now.” If that were correct he could not add nothing to the money available. He cannot speak with two voices. But as a matter of fact we are not lending six to eight million pounds for State Advances. “There are many other statements of the same kind. Sometimes he says the moneys he will spend on railways will earn their own interest, but at other times he says that they will not earn full interest. Sir Joseph said he obtained thirty million pounds for land settlement 20 or 30 years ago, but the total loans raised for land settlement up to 1912 was only £6,900,000, and for Advances to Settlers £7,800,000, so that these two together total only half the amount mentioned by him. But as there are other matters I wish to deal with I will leave the question of the seventy million pounds. I only repeat that it would be unwise to adopt the proposal; that it would involve us in far too heavy annual borrowing and that if the moneys are raised and lent on the terms stated that must cost the taxpayer a large annual sum. If the electors wish to replace the present Government that will borrow less than us, not by a Government that will borrow a great deal more and lend it out at less than cost price.” The speaker was warmly applauded on concluding his criticism of the loan proposals of the United Party. State Advances. “Sir Joseph lays great stress on my statement that money could not be provided for settlers for the next few years,” proceeded the Minister. “What I said was that while such heavy loan expenditure was involved in our present public works I would not at the same time raise large loans for the State Advances. But that does not mean that no moneys are being provided. As a matter of fact about threequarters of a million pounds would catch up on all the applications remaining in arrear from settlers under State Advances, and in our experience generally about onethird of the applicants have to be laid aside for want of adequate security. In the workers’ branch we are further behind, but we have to move with more caution here as in many secondary towns there is a danger of over-building and vacant houses. Not only do we provide some money each year to help the State Advances Department, but the repayments above provide about one and a-half million each year for relending to settlers and workers, and there is also the growing strength of the Rural Advances Branch which has lent out one and a-half million pounds since the Act was passed last year. “The Intermediate Credits scheme is also rapidly assisting in short term loans. Not only so, but the Public Trust, the Government Insurance and other Departments between them are lending millions a year on rural and urban securities. Last year the Public Trustee alone lent out over three million pounds on mortgage. So that between all these Departments very large sums annually are being provided for settlers and workers by Government Departments. Of course so long as the State will lend money at less cost than private institutions there is no limit to what the State will be called on to provide. I do not think the whole burden should be thrown on the State or that the State should become the only money-lender or the only house-builder. (Applause.) If you look at the farmers’ or peasants’ co-operative financial institutions in Belgium and elsewhere you will see that so far from relying on the State for all their loan requirements exactly the opposite is the case and they lend millions of money to the Government out of their accumulated funds. Mr Veitch’s Opposition. “But the chairman of the executive of the United Party, Mr Veitch, seems entirely opposed to the extension of the State Advances. Speaking only last session he said: There is nothing that I am so deeply concerned State interference

with finance and industry. Last session I drew attention to the grave danger already developing in connection with the State Advances Department. “He went on to argue that the more the number of borrowers from the State increased the more powerful they would become politically and would demand almost any concession and get it. ‘I am pointing out,’ he said, ‘the dangers of the socialism of the Reform Party.’ I do not agree with Mr Veitch, but if he holds that view why does he now so blatantly support, a proposal to add £60,000,000 to the funds of the office.” (Applause.) Taxation. “In reply to the statement that the Government has increased every form of taxation and has increased the income tax on the small man,” said Mr Downie Stewart. “I have previously shown that so far from this being true we have reduced the annual taxation under ail heads by three and a quarter million pounds since 1921. The income tax has not been increased on the small man but on the contrary it. has been greatly reduced especially to the family man. The larger incomes are still paying two and three times what they paid before the war. The only increases made last year were on some middle incomes that were paying less than pre-war; that is, they were paying nothing towards the cost of the war or war pensions. Can any critics suggest that this was fair or reasonable? To have left the matter as it was would have been most unjust and a flagrant breach of all fair principles of taxation.” (Hear! Hear!) The Minister explained that the tax had been raised spasmodically during the war and as the position had improved reductions had been made from time to time on a percentage scale, but when the position had been investigated last year it had been found that some men in the middle section with salaries of from £lOOO to £l5OO were paying less than before the war. It was considered that these men, like other sections of the community, should contribute towards the costs of war pensions, etc., and the tax had been increased. It was entirely erroneous to suggest that the men with the larger incomes had not been taxed in proportion to the smaller men and the speaker quoted figures to show that income tax on salaries of £4OOO a year had been more than doubled and on salaries of £9OOO more than trebled. Provision had been made for those with families receiving smaller incomes and allowances were made in respect to each child. A voice: What about the man with 12 bob a day? The Minister: He gets the benefit of the family allowance. The Government had been strongly criticized on the passing of this measure, but it had been held that if those with large incomes were allowed a reduction of taxation on account of their families, those who were receiving an income much lower than the taxation limit should receive some small assistance Many families in New Zealand were availing themselves of this measure and a good deal of appreciation was expressed. “Then it is stated that we have increased the Customs Tariff. This also is entirely erroneous,” declared the speaker. “On the contrary we have made heavy reductions. The old fallacy is repeated that because customs revenue has increased therefore Customs taxation has increased, whereas the revenue has increased in spite of the reductions and because of the greater imports and the greater purchasing power of the people of New, Zealand. If I reduce the duties and the imports rise rapidly why should my critics misrepresent this as an increase in taxation? (Applause). Protection of Industries. “Then it is said we have neglected the secondary industries. This charge is also without foundation. In both the 1921 revision and the 1927 revision of the tariff a large number of our secondary industries received assistance, in fact all that were able to show that they were reasonably entitled to it. Let me mention only the timber industry, the iron industry, flour mills, confectionery works, soap works, engineering, agricultural implements, glass works, tanneries, and many others. Not only so, but the primary industries were not neglected. The wheat growers, the fruit growers, poultry men, growers of maize, linseed, hops and many others, all received substantial assistance. I do .not believe that a high tariff wall is any cure for unemployment,” was the remark with which the speaker concluded this topic. Land Question. Mr Stewart said that it was natural that the land question should loom large in this election. Everyone recognized that New Zealand could not prosper unless the farmer prospered and that every reasonable effort must be made to encourage land settlement. A great deal of unjust criticism had been levelled at the Minister of Lands who had been accused of pessimism and lack of vision. But in spite of the extravagant criticism of the political moreporks who were chiefly city men the people of New Zealand recognized that the Minister of Lands had handled a problem of extraordinary difficulty with great practical common sense, great courage and great patience. He had refused to indulge in any spectacular programme of paper land settlement merely to throw dust in the eyes of the public. While land values were unstable and prices rapidly fluctuating it would have been futile to go in for large purchases of land either voluntarily or by compulsion. The much criticized Te Wera purchase, so far from being evidence of bungling on the part of the Government, was to his mind, proof of the fact that cautious and experienced farmers were still doubtful whether land values were stabilized, because, although the block was bought at the Government, valuation, on the advice of the best land valuers available, there had been no demand for the farms into which it had been subdivided. However, if any Cabinet could guarantee that land settlement and farmers’ problems would be dealt with from a practical, common sense standpoint, surely it was the Reform Cabinet, as not only the Prime Minister, but the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, and Public Works were all experienced, successful and capable farmers. (Applause). There was no use quoting figures to show the drift from the country to the city, as exactly the same problem was facing the various Australian Governments, and if they studied the Queensland figures, the West Australian figures, or those of other States, they would see that New Zealand had much to be thankful for. Critics of Reform said nothing about America, where over one million farmers walked off their farms in one year. The speaker concluded by referring to the steady progress under Reform in such Departments as Health, Public Works, Education and Land Settlement. He urged that the fortunate position New Zealand enjoyed under the Reform Government justified a renewal of confidence. In comparison with the programme of other parties with their borrowing proposals the Reform policy was the most acceptable and he felt sure that the public would agree that rather than follow spectacular promises they would stand by a Government which gave them such fair, sympathetic and just treatment as during the last three years. (Prolonged applause.) Mr W. Hinchey asked whether the Minister would be prepared to recommend the Government to subsidize a direct shipping service from Melbourne to Bluff to meet the needs of Southland and Otago. Mr Downie Stewart said he was well aware of the position, but he did not think anything would come of the proposal. If the Tasmanian and Victorian Governments were sufficiently keen to co-operate then it would probably be expedient for New Zealand to join in. The subsidy question, however, was difficult, but he was hopeful that if the proposal were put up it would appeal to his colleagues fronOhe point of view of tourist traffic and railways. A questioner asked what had been done to improve old-age pensions of recent years. The Minister replied that the pensions had been increased from 10/- to 17/6. The questioner: Per annum? The Minister: No, per week. (Laughter.) In 1921 pensions had cost £731,000 but now cost £1,010,000.

Confidence in Reform Party. In moving a resolution expressing thanks to the speaker and confidence in the Reform Party, Mr R. M. Strang said that New Zealanders as a whole were deeply sensitive of the services rendered to the Dominion by the hon. gentleman, and it was the hope of all that he would be long spared to carry on as Minister of Finance. (Prolonged applause.) Mr Strang then moved the following resolution: “That this meeting expresses its deep appreciation to the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, Minister of Finance, for his very able statement upon the financial position of the Dominion, congratulates him upon having so successfully controlled the affairs of his Department during a very difficult period, affirms its approval of his policy and expresses confidence in the Reform Party.” Mr C. J. Bradfield seconded the motion, and on a show of hands the chairman declared it overwhelmingly carried. Cheers and applause greeted this announcement, and then the audience spiritedly sang “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow,” further cheers and the singing of the National Anthem concluding one of the most successful and enthusiastic election meetings ever held in Invercargill. THE CROWD’S PART A THIRST FOR KOWLEDGE. MINISTER DEALS WITH QUERIES. The initial greeting to .the Hon. W. Downie Stewart was so spontaneous and hearty that it appeared as if the meeting was going to be free from interjections and heckling, but this doubt was soon dispelled. The mere mention by Mr. Stewart of his intention to criticize Sir Joseph Ward’s loan proposals caused a general uneasiness in a certain section of the theatre and this was amplified when the speaker invited his hearers not to be unduly sympathetic, but to question anything they were in doubt about. As an offset to this, however, Mr Stewart early “got” hie house with some appropriate anecdotes and humorous references to the ‘other” parties. A burst of applause accompanied feeling reference to Sir Joseph’s health, but ironic laughter followed when the United Party was likened to “political innocents abroad” and “moreporks.” Mr. Stewart was quite fair and gave every consideration to remarks concerning Sir Joseph’s past good deeds. “There is no doubting Sir Joseph’s popularity,” said the speaker. “ and brains,” piped a voice from the back of the circle. “Hoorays” were echoed with this remark. This was the signal for an outburst of yells from the bacK of the theatre the most discernible being the request: “What about a spot?” Mr. Stewart went on unperturbed and again referred to the United Party leader’s popularity, detailing his magnificent reception all over the country upon his return from England in 1912 "but when it came to the actual election—” the speaker was proceeding: “You got Howard Elliot out,” chipped in an interjector. Mr. Stewart: No. We had nothing to do with that. A voice: “Dicken!” The United Party’s attitude to Labour and the Government, and the inconsistency of the new party’s candidates in voting on a no-confidence motion were more or less ridiculed by Mr. Stewart. He cited Mr. Wilford’s stand and was referring to Sir Joseph’s statement concerning the way he would vote when a voice cried “Joe knew that Macalister was out for the Labour vote.” “Yes” replied the Minister, “and it’s a tribute to the great good sense of Labour in Invercargill that the electors will vote for Macalister.” (Cheers). A period of silence marked the introductory references to the United Party’s loan proposals, the hon. gentleman’s lucid explanation and criticism of each point commanding the utmost respect. At long last, evidently as the result of the speaker’s searching examination exposing the futility of the proposed borrowings, a voice disgustedly grunted out: “You don’t understand it.” Mr. Stewart: I thought somebody would say that. Well, I’ll explain. Another voice: Ask him (the first voice) to come down and argue with you. The suggestion was not acted upon and the speaker continued his explanation. A voice: Tell us about the 17 millions Joey left. Mr Stewart took up this point, but evidently did not satisfy a member of the audience who brought laughter with: “Come out to Tussock Creek and have a look at the bog you bought.” “What’s the use of public buildings when there’s no money to support or build them?” asked a questioner in the front of the orchestral stalls. Mr Stewart was talking of school buildings at the time. “We want no more white elephants,” added the interrupter. Mr Stewart: What white elephants does the questioner refer to? xA voice: The Reform Party. (Laughter.) Another voice (just behind the questioner) : I think he means the Borstal. (Silence.) Still the Minister of Finance continued without losing the thread of his address. Many interruptions were made at this stage, but they could not be picked up in the babel. The speaker asked for a repetition of the questions but rarely did the interjector double up. Outlining the schemes the Government had in train for the welfare of the country, the speaker incurred the wrath of one persistent heckler, whose question, unheard at the Press table, was being answered in the following strain: “Does the questioner suggest that I, as Minister of Finance”—when in came a voice: “You’re a dud.” Loud applause met the announcement concerning the Government’s action in getting New Zealand fish into Australia. Mr Stewart was talking of our secondary industries, and a whistle brought the quick reply, “Well, don’t whistle. I got letters from fishing men at Bluff the other day thanking me for getting their fish into Australia.” (Applause.) There was uproar and cries of “Shut up,” “Sit down,” when the orchestral stalls heckler attempted argument with the speaker on the land question. This brought mention of the Te Wera estate, but Mr Stewart amidst applause quickly silenced his questioners. From this out the .speaker received a splendid hearing, laughter only at some of the questioners’ remarks breaking the smoothness of the conclusion. The house indulged in a final “split” when one man, endeavouring to glean information concerning the old age pensions, replied to Mr Stewart that 17/6 per annum was the pension payable, obviously meaning 17/6 per week. THE MINISTER AT WINTON. AN ENTHUSIASTIC AUDIENCE. Yesterday afternoon the Hon. W. Downie Stewart visited Winton and addressed a large audience which well filled the Theatre Royal. On arrival at the hall, the Minister was accorded an enthusiastic reception. The speech throughout was punctuated with applause and the only interjector present expressed only approval. The Mayor (Mr J. A. Broom), presided, and in introducing the Minister said he was pleased to again welcome Mr Downie Stewart to Winton. At the conclusion of the address, the Minister was accorded prolonged applause. Mr J. Lilico moved a very hearty vote of thanks to the Minister for the able and statesmanlike address and a vote of confidence, expressing the hope that he would hold the position for many years. The seconder of the motion elected to make a speech, but this was not appreciated by the audience who refused to allow him to continue his remarks. “I think the best way would be for me to thank you for your vote of thanks and move one of appreciation to the chairman,” said the Minister.