The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 1911. MR. HERDMAN'S ADDRESS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13335, 25 March 1911, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 1911. MR. HERDMAN'S ADDRESS.

The Opposition are hard pressed to find a candidate to contest the Wanganui seat at the next general election. The organiser of the party was here the other day with a view to making a selection, but up to the present no definite choice has been made, though quite a number of names are mentioned, including at least one prominent Liberal, who it was fondly hoped might be induced to stand in the good old “Independent” ticket, as it was no doubt thought that if there was no chance of getting a straight-out Oppositionist returned here, an “Independent” would be preferable—from the. Opposition point of view—to a Liberal. Whether there was any connection between this "ruffle” in the Opposition camp and Mr Herdman’s appearance at the Opera House last evening we ars not prepared to say, but it is at least significant. This by the way. So far as the address itself was concerned, we have to confess to a feeling of surprise, if not disappointment: surprise that so very few loopholes were found by Mr Hetdman in the armour of the Government wherein he might direct his shafts of adverse criticism and attack, and disappointment generally at the platform efforts of one who was heralded as one of the bright and shining lights of the Opposition. It would be absurd to suppose that a Government which has been in power for twenty years should not be open to attack, should not, indeed, have been guilty of many sins of omission and commission; but it is distinctly complimentary to the Liberal cause and administration that it came so well out of the attack last night. The pages of ancient and contemporary fiction had been ransacked by Mr Herdman to provide him ■with pabulum for his address, and various purveyors of anecdotes were levied upon for material wherewith to embellish his remarks, even poor old “Bill Adams” being resurrected for the occasion. The object was, of course, to illustrate in a pleasant and interesting manner the sins of the present Government and the desirableness of putting them out of office and putting Mr Massey, Mr Herdman and their friends in. But this has for some years now been so much overdone, that the ordinary speeches of the Opposition leaders arc now merely a conglomeration of more or less irrelevant charges and stories varying in character from ghastly to gay. The only point upon which the Opposition leaders are not united is as to whether there is or is not any great difference between the Government and the Opposition. Mr Herdman assured his hearers last evening, with all the force and earnestness at bis command, that, there was all the difference, in the world between the two parties; as great

as the difference between night and day. If we mistake not, Mr Massey and Mr Allen have claimed that there is really very little difference between them. Hut then even doctors differ.

One of Mr Hcrdman’s main points of attack was with regard to industries, which lie said were inurionsly affected by the logi-iatiou of the Government. Industries, he said, haw been languishing, and the industrial life of the Dominion was, as it were, stricken with a plague. It was somewhat unfortunate for Mr Hcrdman that he should have quoted such belated figures as he did to support his argument. Seeing that his indictment was directed against the Govern ment, it would have been more to the point had he quoted figures during the period since the present Premier assumed the reins of office, and not confined himself to the returns of six years ago. This portion of his address, too, would have been more interesting had ho quoted the whole of the figures given in the Year Book, from which doubtless he obtained his information. We will supply a few of the omissions. Mr Hcrdman mentioned some pf the industries that had during the period between 1900 and 1905 deceased, but he did not say how many and what industries had increased. He could have said that there were increases during that period in at least 46 of the industries carried on in the Dominion, oven if there was a decrease in the number of bauds employed in shirtmaking, and there wore six people less employed in the breweries in 1905 than in 1900. Mr Hcrdman could have said that during the five years there was an increase of over 20 per cent, in the number of hands employed, that there had been an increase in the total sum paid in wages of 35 per cent., and that the total increase in the value of manufactures during the five-yearly period was i‘5,591,102. Mr Hcrdman might have added also that the reason certain industries which he quoted showed a decrease was the inability to procure labour, which is not available in the Dominion for the woollen and boot and shoo industries, in which thousands of women and girls could be absorbed. Of course the Government is wholly to blame for this. It suited the political exigencies of the moment for Mr Hcrdman to attribute the prosperity of the Dominion to the high prices ruling for our produce, hut it did not occur to the speaker that some little credit was due to the Government for its paternal efforts in fostering the dairy and frozen meat industries and establishing experimental farms and appointing instructors to teach the farmers the science of farming. We heartily endorse what Mr Herdman said about the unwisdom and injustice of any Parliament legislating for one class of the community only, but in this connection it is as well to remember that for generations only one class has influenced legislation, and it has been the aim of successive Liberal administrations to “even up” things a hit and legislate a little for the other'class. But the most heinous crime Mr Hcrdman charged the Government with was the lowering of the standard of national life. Lowering of the standard of national life, indeed! Is it lowering the standard to increase the wages of the workers, to reduce their hours of labour, to improve the general conditions under which they work, to put them in the way of getting cheap homes for themselves, and fo make provision for them against accident, misfortune, and old age? Is it lowering the standard of national life for Dr. Findlay, for instance, to devote a great deal of his time and attention to the more humane treatment of tho unfortunates in our prisons and gaols or for the Government to pass humanitarian laws for the general uplifting of tho masses? And Mr Herdman surely will admit that this has been done by the Liberal Government. Where then; is his justification for tho sweeping condemnation about the lowering of the standard of national life? If there is any “lowering” it is surely to be found in the misconstruction of each and every action of tho Government by those politically opposed to them, and the persistent and pussilanimous charges of maladministration and corruption which are cither definitely alleged or positively implied but never proved. It seems to ns that it would be much more in tho interests of good government, of the raising of the standard of national life, and of the general welfare of tho State if simple denial or fair explanation were accepted by the Opposition, in place- of the ancient reiterated charges so often refuted. Wc are not blind to the defects of the Government —we cannot shut our eyes to the faults and failures of the Native Land Department, for instance —but, at the sa-mci time, we do say that on the whole the Liberal record will triumphantly stand analysis; no other political force in this or any other country can compare with it in things done for tho benefit of the community as a wholefarmers equally with the workers. And Liberalism’s record during the past twenty years is what it rests on for authority to go on in the future, Mr Herdman’s opinion to tho contrary and his condemnation notwithstanding.