THE DIFFERENCE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13423, 10 July 1911, Page 4

THE DIFFERENCE.

The Otago Daily Times wants to know why ISir James Carroll. when telling his andienco at Invercargill that Mr Massey had voted against the Advances to Settlors Dill, did not mention that Mr Thomas Mackenzie and Mr J. A. Millar had also opposed that measure. “Is it not apparent,’’ it asks in its rather ponderous manner, “that it Mr Massey, hy the opposition he offered to that Dill, for the same reasons as were urged by Mr J. A. Millar in explanation of his opposition—namely, that he waa pledged to oppose further borrowing—-showed himself to bo not entitled to the confidence of the electors as a member of the Government, Mr Thomas Mackenzie and Mr Millar ar» in precisely the same ease?” Commenting on this the Lyttelton Times says: Of course we are not authorised to speak tor the Acting-Prime Minister, but it seems to us that he had a very admirable reason for his silence in the fact that. Mr Mackenzie's and Mr Millar’s criticism of the Bill stood on quite a different piano from Mr Massey’s active opposition. Mr Massey, without saying one word, by the way, about, any pledge he had given to his constituents, declared that the operation of the measure “would be detrimental to the best interests of the country," that a “groat many losses” would be made whore leaseholders" and Crown tenants were concerned,” and that Parliament “ought to draw the line at a State pawnshop.” We, ail I,mow how utterly his predictions were falsified. Mr Mackenzie approved of tho principle of tho Bill, but opposed some of its details, bolding that better provision should bo made for the relief of the “small men,'’ and though he did not vote against the measure, he certainly

cannot be counted among its supporters. Mr Millar explained that his opposition was due to a general pledge against bor- - Moving he had given his constituents, -and I i suggested an amendment by which tho have been made from the British eapjfalist direct to (ho Isirrower with a. State guarantee. He did not appose the second reading, as lie believed, lo (piote his own words, “that it may Ihj .ossihle to improve (lie Bill and make it i. useful measure in committee,” amt he lid not vote against the third reading. 'iireT- onr contemporary, when reminded if these fads, will see that flic two Ministers are not "in precisely the same case'' is the lender of the Opposition is in n> jiecl lo (his piece of ancient history.