Thames Star THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1932. OTTAWA FIRST.

Thames Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 18512, 2 June 1932, Page 2

Thames Star

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1932. OTTAWA FIRST.

11| '“With malice towards none; fwith charity for all; with firmness ! |fn tho right, as' God/gives ua- to ! ||ee the right/'—Lincoln. ;

'Though it was •generally expected! that both Mr Forbes and Mr Cbates would he members of the New Zealand delegation at the Empire Economic Conference at Ottawa in July next, the official announcement of tho fact has occasioned a good deal of more or less scathing comment. “We have no desire to exaggerate the difficulties, or to suggest that there are no other good men ; in the Cabinet,” says the Evening Post, in reviewing the situation to the length of a column and a half; “bqtj we should be failing in our duty if we concealed our deep regret that, under these conditions, Mr Forbes and Mr Coates should have elected to leave their posts together for three or four months, and our ! hope that some excuse may yet be found for changing the decision.” The morning paper is a little more -restrained on the subject than is its contemporary, but it observes that the Government, in its evident anxiety to do justice to the occasion, has rather overdone its appreciation. It will bo remembered, by folk who keep count of such things, that when Mr Massey wont Home to attend the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919, he was accompanied bv Sir Joseph Ward, the Leader of the LiberalLabour Opposition of the time, which had committed itself to the National Cabinet for the period of tho war. Now, presumably, Mr Forbes is playing the role of Mr Massey, and Mr Coates that of Sir Joseph Ward, with the difference, perhaps, that the National Cabinet was more solidly consolidated than is the present Coalition Cabinet. It is not history, but At is a fact which can bo mentioned, now that tho two principals concerned have passed away, that o n reaching Paris, Sir Joseph found himself attached to no division of the peace proceedings, and would have returned to New Zealand forthwith but for the tact and chivalry of Mr Massey. The incident may be worth recalling at the present time, as an indication of the diffi#lties winch beset such delicate undertakings as Mr Forbes and his companions are facing. A majority of the metropolitan newspapers, other than the local .publications, are distinctly opposed to the magnitude of the New Zealand delegation. ’The New Zealand Herald puts this magnitude down to the consequences of the Coalition —“an effort to keep the balance between the Parties, both at Ottawa and at home.” This, it thinks, is good for Ottawa but very bad for New Zealand. “The country,” says the Auckland Star, “will be astonished, and even shocked, that three Ministers are to go to Ottawa. Even in a time of rampant prosperity and economic calm, this would be extravagant.” “The Dominion,” protests the Christchurch Times, “surely could have been .adequately represented without taking the leading three members of Cabinet away at so difficult a time.” “It was obvious that Mr Forbes and Mr Downie Stewart, if available, should be members of the delegation,” admits the Otago Times, i “but, as Minister of Employment, Mr Coates never should have absented himself from the Dominion.” And so on and so on to many pages of protest. In its criticism of the magnitude of the New Zealand delegation, the New Zealand Herald, quite naturally, asks why three Ministers should be required to represent New Zealand at Ottawa, while only two are required for the needs of the whole of tho Australian representations. But this Dominion’s delegation does not end with three Ministers and their attendants. There are five other delegates, without any definitely defined standing: Mr D. Jones, representing the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Boardj Mr W. Goodfelloav, representing the New Zealand Dairy Produce Board; Mr H. E. Napier, representing tho New Zealand Fruit Growers’ Federation; Sir Francis Boys, representing the New Zealand Farmers’ Union; and a representative of the Manufacturers’ Association, still to be nominated. These gentlemen and their staffs, it is stated, are not to be any charge upon the Government, but it is conceivable that they may become a considerable taX”wpon a section of tho community unrepresented at. .the Empire Conference.' This is a point to which the Primp Minister arid’ hfficoileagues should, bo turning attention.