THE TWO PARTIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5568, 18 May 1896, Page 4

THE TWO PARTIES.

(From tie Lytteltcn Times.)

> The approach of the general election, when the Liberal and Conservative parties will measure their strength at the polls, renders it desirable that attention should be directed to the principles professed by' the respective sides, and that the issues before the electors should be clearly defined. The Liberal Party has been in office nearly six years, and during that time has accomplished much useful work. The Statute Book beara -witness to the efforts it has put forth, first under the late Mr Ballanee, and then under the present Premier, to improve the condition of the people of the colory. Some of its legislation is tentative, some is still on its trial; but it may be generally stated that its aim and object have been to raise the condition of the humbler classes without imposing any undue burden upon any section of the community. In this Mr Seddon and his colleagues have been true to the best traditions of Liberalism — using the term, in its broadest sense— by extending the opportunities of the people to secure their own physical, intellectual, moral and social improvement. It is the firet principle of Liberalism, that legislation should aim primarily at the improvement of the race, and that this improvement should be soughb chiefly in man's higher nature, rather than in his surroundings. This is accepted, we are proud to say, by a majority of the people of this colony. If they were asked what public service they would wish above all others to retain, they would eelect almo&t unanimously our education system. And why ? "Because they know an educated population is self-reliant and eelf-dependent.

As a consequence of the acceptance ot this principle — that' the primary object of legislation should be to improve the race — there must be checks and limitations upon whatever would tend in the opposite direction. And this brings us face to face with the leading principle of the Conservative Party — a party whose mission and object is to "conserve" — what? Certainly not the social and moral condition of the masses. Whenever such matters are discussed they ask, " Are we our brother's keeper ?" They professedly seek to conserve wealth, and all the influence its possession gives. In a word, Liberalism represents the good of the people ; Conservatism represents the influence and power of capital. Anyone who doubts this statement should glance at the programme issued by the local branch of the self-styled "National " Association, the rallying centre of tho Conservative Party in Canterbury. It breathes the spirit oC intense selfishness, of the " rights " of capital, of the most narrow-minded egoism. What will any broad-minded man think of a policy which proposes " to secure prosperity and confidence, by opposing all experimental legislation, which tends to check the legitimate use of capital, causing it to be locked up or withdrawn from the country, to the detriment of employer and employe." Yet that sentence, as punctuated, stands as Clause 4 of the objects of the " National" Association. Had a majority been returned to Parliament in 1890 and 1893 favourable to the "National" views, we Bhould certainly not. have had to-day upon ouv Statute Book the lav?s relating to workmen's liens, employers' liability, shop holidays, factory registration and inspection, arbitration and conciliation, and a number of others, all of which were designed to check the rapacity of capital, managed solely with a view to securing dividends. Nearly all these measures were " experimental legislation." Eor five years the members of the Conservative Party have loudly declared that this legislation was " tending to check the legitimate use of capital," that it was " causing capital to be locked up or withdrawn from the country," and that it was doing a hundred other things inimical to the best interests of the coiony. They have shed copious tears over the shrinking of the "wages fund," and have never lost an opportunity to tell the working man that the legislation he is promoting, by keeping the Liberals in power, is " to the detriment of employers and employed." Yet, when we ask Captain Bussell and his friends which portion of the " experimental legislation" passed by the Liberal Party they would repeal if entrusted with power, they are unable to point to a single measure they dare propose to remove from the Statute Book. Can any stronger proof of their insincerity be required ? We think not.

The fact is that tho laws w§ have mentioned are clieclta and limitations on the power of wealth to aggregate to itself. The capitalist seeks dividends ; the Liberal says,. " Tour dividends must not be obtained at the expense of the health and common rights of those whose lot it is to work for you." The capitalist says, "Why should you interfere with the rights and liberties of the subject? Can I not do what I choose with my own money? Cannot these people work for me under any conditions they please?" The Liberal replies, "The rights of the subject are not covered merely by bartering labour for a pittance. You have no right to prey upon the needs of your fellowmen. If they are too needy and weak to help themselves, the State Bhall stand between you and them and compel you to treat them as human beings, not as cattle, or, wor3e still, as inanimate machines." Here we have, despite party cries and protests, clearly defined principles which divide Liberals and Conservatives'. The principles of the Liberal Party are enshrined in the beneficent land and labour legislation of the past four or five years ; those of the Conservative Party are found in the platform of the "National" Association. The people of New Zealand will shortly have an opportunity to make a choice between the two. It would be an insult to their intelligence, ag well as to their humanity — to their heads a* well as to their hearts— to doubt on which side their verdict will be cast.