THE COLONIST. Published Daily—Mornings. Nelson, Wednesday, June 19, 1901. THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM.

Colonist, Volume XLIV, Issue 10129, 19 June 1901, Page 2

THE COLONIST. Published Daily— Mornings. Nelson, Wednesday, June 19, 1901. THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM.

At the recent gathering oftheßiccarfeon Liberal Association addresses were delivered by three members of the House of Representatives, Messrs G. W. Russell, W. W. Collins, and Ell. Mr Russell, after stating that the Conservatives were as dead as the dodo, declared that the policy of the future would be liberal and more liberal, thai; if the party now in power did not give satisfaction it would not be because they were going too fast in progressive legislation, but because they were moving too slowly. The speaker advocated an extension of the old age pension scheme ; supported the State ownership of coal mines, and said he would not be satisfied till the people could have coal delivered at their doors at 22s 6a per ton ; and urged the young people in particular to support their members. Mr Collins spoke of purity of legislation, and said this could only be secured by the younger members of the community taking a lively interest in political questions, while Mr Ell supported the remarks of the previous speakers, The last mentioned speaker, however, complained that the people had not got a direct voice in the legislation of the Colony, which was virtually left to their representatives in Parliament. In continuing, he said that these members were elected for a 'period of three years, and if \he electors disapproved of their actions they, were powerless to remove them, or to make their opinions felt. The Progressive party wished to alter this, and give the people power to vote by ballot upon any measure before it was finally passed, so that if they disapproved of it it could not become the law of the land. The prospect of having coal delivered at one's door at ten to fifteen shilling a ton less than at present is a very pleasant one, but the man who suggested the possibility should have shown how it is to be accomplished. No doubt the State could acquire coal mines, and could also run vessels as well as railway trains to convey the coal from the mines to the centres of population, but we have no proof yec that the State could do this work more cheaply than it is done by private individuals. It it can be shown that State control of the coal trade is likely to prove generally beneficial there is no doubt that such control will pass into the hands of the State, but to fix a price at which coal should be sold by the State before it is 1 possible to say what

ihe cost would be, looks very much !• ike a desire to eaddle the countfy pith any possible difference between josfc and" the selling rate mentioned, md that would be highly objectionable. t ii The suggestion that all important v matters Should be settled by a vote p of the people seems to tis to be one * of an extremely dangerous nature, ° for there would be no guarantee that i Ihe people who voted^ or the majority i of them, had studied the proposals, r or given full consideration to their * probable effects, tinder our present t Parliamentary system reforms may I be delayed somewhat, but important * proposals are fully discussed in Par- j liament, on 1 platform, "and in the Press, and the weight of public i opinion, formed after pros and cons i have been put forward, invariably ] tells; but with proposals submitted j directly to the people, before full i discussion had taken place, there i would be very grave danger of th 9 * sentiment of the hour leading to , the passing of measures that would ; have very injurious consequences. 1 Under such a system the power of j the Parliament would cease to exist, ! but so would the responsibilities of the representatives, and the probabilities, indeed the certainty, is that designiog individuals would find their opportunity.