The Star. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1911. THIS YEAR'S CROP.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10305, 9 November 1911, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1911. THIS YEAR'S CROP.

Every election your brings its crop of Opposition stories ol alleged maladministration, blunderng and corruption on tho part of the Government. They aro sown like, tares among the Liberal wheat, in tho hope that tho Liberal crop of good works will bo choked. But tho Liberals have learned by experience to be watchful, and the weeds aro pulled out by the roots as soon as their presence is revealed. Mr Massey, wo see, is still repeating the ridiculous story that Sir Joseph "Ward opposed tho Women's Franchise Bill, although the fiction has been exposed and refuted a score of times. The Opposition has sunk pretty low when it lias to resort to tactics of this kind to discredit the Government. The facts of the case are well known. Sir Joseph Ward was away from Wellington, and, following the customary practice, ho was paired while away with a member of the Opposition. During his absence the question of women's suffrage was raised, and, in order that the pair should not bo broken, Sir Joseph was placed in tho position of having himself recorded as an opponent of the reform. Both Mr Mitchelson, with whom he had paired, and himself supported the extension of the franchise to women, and in the circumstances one or other had to have his name recorded in tho division list on the wrong side. Sir Joseph took tho earliest possiblo opportunity of stating tho position in the House, and lis explanation is on record in "Hansard." He telegraphed to tho whips to secure him another pair, but the alteration could not then be made. These facts have been brought under Mr Massey's notice more than once, but he persists in ignoring them, and he seems to take a delight in telling his audiences that Sir Joseph Ward opposed the Women's franchise Bill. If this is his idea of humour, it is a strange one, for it is misrepresentation of a mean kind. Another pretty scandal that Mr M'assey has unearthed, and for which he is being given credit by the Opposition journals, relates to the expenditure of publie money for the benefit of private individuals in the Prime Minister's electorate. The facts hero are that a local body applied to the Government for a small grant for work that was represented to be necessary. Tho money was granted and tho local body was left to spend it. According to tho story that Mr Massey is telling the money was used for tho benefit of a private individual. If tho story lias a moral it is that the policy of trusting the local bodies, which tho Opposition is fond of urging on tho Government, has grave clangers. Sir Joseph Ward seems to have known nothing of the- matter, and it is rather a curious fact that tho responsible member of tho local body applying for the grant and tho person who is said to have benefited are both pronounced opponents of the Government. We are inclined to think that by the time this particular story is finished with the Opposition will be sorry it spoke. Sir John Findlay has been called on to protest against tho Opposition campaign of calumny in the north, and virtually everywhere an Opposition candidate is speaking the fictions circulated from tho Opposition's head office in Wellington are being repeated on the platform. The public would do well to hear both sides of these tales. Of a different kind is a piece of alleged financial criticism that is being circulated broadcast in tho I'iceartoji electorate by tho Opposition candidate. This criticism seems to have been collared from Mr M'Combs's speech, but Mr M 1 Combs had the ordinary honesty to state the wliolo of the facts and to explain that the real position was not affected by tho figures which ho considered to have been inaccurately stated in the Budget. The qualification, of course, is omitted in the Riccarton leaflet.