DISHONESTY OF THE OPPOSITION.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11729, 2 December 1905, Page 5

DISHONESTY OF THE OPPOSITION.

Having failed to prevent the progressive legislation which has marked the regimo of the Liberal Government, being placed upon the Statute Book, the Opposition havo changed their tactics, and now make most extraordinary claims with respect to the part played by Conservatives in rogard to many of lha measures passed. A striking illustration of the j-crsistencc with which these tactics are practised is given by the Lyttelton Times, which is highly amused to find Mr Massoy and liis Mends claiming; ihat ilie Leader of Hie Opposition is author of tho suggestion that a wife should he an equal partner witli her husband in the possession of the family horne — the most extraordinary of many extraordinary claims put forward by Mr Massey in his self-glorious S2Deeeh at Auckland. He says that he got the- idea from .Ymcriiw, and his friends reminded tho Times that he mentioned that in Christchurch six months ago. But the Times points out that tho co-partnership of wife and husband was urged by a number of progressive political organisations and by many progressive politicians at least ten years before. That idea was far enough advanced to be submitted to Mr Ballance some time before his death, and l:e promised to give it favourable consideration. Mr Seddon had prepared the way for its full realisation by legislation ior the improvement of the economic position of women, and he has now practically undertaken that next session he will introduce a measure to give tho v:ife a statutory right to a voice in the disposition of her home. It is a little curious, by the way, the Times adds, that whenever the Premier makes a promise of this kind it is denounced by the Conservative press as a, bribe to the electors. Mr Massey may promise freehold, cheap money for local bodies, increased public works expenditure, the complete emancipation of women, and many other generous things, and they aro all applauded by Opposition newspapers as statesmanlike reforms, but if Mr Seddon proposes even as much as an addition to the overcrowded public school, it is derided as a bid for votes. But this is only characteristic of the Conservative tactics of the present day. With tho retirement of Sir William Russell, all sense of fairness seems to have left the party.

There is one other matter of a similar nature referred to by the Auckland Star. xVt "Whangarei the other night, Mr E. Thompson addressed a meeting of electors, and devoted himself to the task of clearing up popular misconceptions about Mr Massey's favourite and famous boast concerning the duty on fencing wire. Everybody knows that Mr Maseey cairns to have induced or compelled the Government to remove the duty on fencing wire; and though his claim has been disputed, one of his best known supporters has advertised his willingness to forfeit .£SOO if his leader's assertion is disproved. To settle the matter conclusively, Mr Thompson had referred the question to Sir William Russell, who we need hardly say is known throughout the colony not only as an Oppositionist, but as a fearlessly honest man. Sir William Russell's reply was read by Mr Thompson ■to his audience, and ws commend it to the notice of those who.cHng to the conviction that whatever else the Opposition may bo, it is nothing if not "honest." Sir William Russell has carefully compared the journals of the House with the record of this case in Hansard, and his concusion is that "the item duty on fencing wire was struck out of the Tariff Bill on the motion, of Major

Steward." Captain Kussell thus endorses the statement made by Mr Seddon that the credit for moving the reduction in fencing 1 wire duty belongs to Major Steward, and not to Mr Massey.