MR. VEITCH AT THE OPERA HOUSE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19033, 10 June 1924, Page 4

MR. VEITCH AT THE OPERA HOUSE

For some reason or other, Mr. Veitch last evening did not fulfill the expectations which press notices bad raised in the minds of those who oppose the Reform Party. He left the Government very much alone. It was disappointing, in view of the fact that he spoke for two hours. The major portion of that time was devoted to attacks on the Labour Party, which he trounced severely. Mr. Veitch condemned the communistic policy of that party in unmeasured terms, and lauded the British Constitution correspondingly highly. He said that Czarism had been the worst Government in the world, but the Soviet was very much worse. As the Russians had made a mistake in departing from the very bad Government they had had, how much more foolish would it be for the British people to change their constitution, which was the freest and best in the world. It was quite sound reasoning, and many of those who heard Mr. Veitch no doubt wondered if they should not apply the same principle to the Government of New Zealand. Why change the present Government for a worse—for Mr. Holland or even Mr. Wilford? Perhaps conscience pricked even Mr. Veitch and accounted for his not saying anything very bad against Mr. Massey. And as the audience listened they no doubt wondered if there were likely to be any gifts of superior statesmanship in either of the two parties now in Opposition. Mr. Veitch, of course, did not credit Mr. Holland with any such attribute. But has the Wilford party any cither? Mr. Veitch did not boast of any. He devoted practically all his time to the railways and the Labour Party, and he regretted he had not the time to delve deeply into finance. We hope he will have time to do a little delving before his next address, for finance is a weird and mysterious subject. From his comments on the railways, it is quite clear that if Mr. Veitch were ever Minister of Railways he would have a nerve-racking time at the hands of financial and political critics. His panacea for the railway problem seems to be to incur fresh capital expenditure (of how much, he gave not the slightest indication, but he talked of deviations to avoid steep grades, so perhaps he is thinking in millions) and then to reduce freights in the hope of encouraging trade. No doubt he would also increase wages and salaries, shorten the hours and employ more men. Platitudes sound well when a politician woos the people for the privilege of handling, or gambling with, public money, but would Mr. Veitch try his own remedies if the railways were his own property and meant sinking more money in them? Or would he first of all try to cut down the expenditure? Would he not have done just as the Railway Department did, and for which he criticises it now? Would he not, when the costs of materials were at peak prices after the war, have reduced maintenance work to a minimum, commensurate with public safety? Mr. Veitch said this expenditure had been reduced, but he confessed that the safety of the public had not been endangered, and he also confessed, soto voce, as it were, that the amount spent in maintenance work had of late years been gradually increasing towards the old amount. In general, Mr. Veitch's main idea in regard to the railways was to spend heaps more money in capital and upkeep, and to reduce the revenue. And very soon after he advocated spending more on the railways, he criticised the Government for borrowing money for development work. We are afraid Mr. Veitch is a plain politician, but no statesman. His audience was certainly very patient.