The Gisborne Times . PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER I8, 1909 BETRAYAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2610, 18 September 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times . PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1909 BETRAYAL.

In referring to the prospects of the Rangitikei election we remarked upon the significant fact that not only the Opposition. but also the Government candidates were standing as supporters of the freehold tenure. We suggested that either the Cabinet had been unable to discover a candidate who would support the leasehold or, what was j list possible, that it bad not been desirous of doing so. This latter possibility is materially strengthened by additional facts that have come to light. At tire general election Mr Smith stood as an Independent candidate, but now ho is a faithful: supporter of the Government. His explanation is that the land question compelled him to stand aloof before, but that the barrier has now been removed by a change of opinion on the part not of liimself hut of the Government. “Now that the Ministry has accorded me their approbation as a candidate,” he says in a printed address to the electors, “with the distinct ■understanding that I still retain my independence on the freehold question, the necessity for taking a hand as an Independent no longer exists. There has been no change in my views, hut I confidently anticipate that ere long the present Government will bow to the will of the people and grant the freehold to Crown tenants.” He has enlarged upon this interesting text in almost every speech, declaring that lie “had been approached by the Government to stand jn their interests,” and that having refused to do so on account of his opinions on the land question, he had been informed: by the Government that “they would accept him subject to his land scruples.” There seems .to have been some misunderstanding as to the extent to which the Government endorsed Mr Smith’s candidature, and hi s very emphatic pronouncement has received. Ministerial denial. At the same time the statements of the Ministers themselves are sufficiently explicit to indicate the substantial accuracy of Mr Smith’s assertion in regard to the land policy. “As there are more Liberal candidates than one announced for the Rangitikei seat fully satisfactory to the Government,” wrote Mr Carroll, in answer to an appeal from one of them, “it feels that the choice should Be left to the electors, without any declaration of preference.” “Fully satisfactory to the Government” is indeed a singular expression for the acting head of the Government to use of candidates who are all diametrically opposed to the Government on a fundamental point in its policy. Dr Findlay, to whom an appeal was subsequently made, confirmed the statement, but wisely guarded himself a little more carefully by substituting “equally satisfactory” for “fully satisfactory.” Yet even the Attorney-General’s legal caution has put the Government in a very unpleasant light. The Government put its land policy on the statute-book in 1907, and neither at the general election nor since, has any of its members had a' word to say indicating a desire to abandon it. Yet when three candidates announce themselves as opposed to an essential feature of that policy, the Acting-Premier describes their attitude as “fully satisfactory to the Government” ; and though one of them would retain the freehold of settlement lands for the State while onei at least of the others would not, the AttorneyGeneral declares that they are all “equally satisfactory.” The Wellington “Evening Post,” which lias been a sta.unch advocate of the leasehold tenure, is highly indignant at the change of policy on the -part of the Government and voices its opinions thus: Is there any meaning in these official statements but that the Government has entirely reversed its attitude on! the land question, or that at the best it is utterly indifferent whether its policy is reversed or not? If the popular cause is to be betrayed, we are at least entitled to ask that it shall be done openly. What we may perhaps be permitted to call an honest/betrayal would be far preferable to the silent, secret, timid, and evasive surrender which appears to be in progress.

There is really nothing in all this L o cause surprise amongst people who have carefully noted modern governmental' methods. The lesson of the general election has evidently not been lost upon Sir Joseph Ward’s Ministry. So sooni as the results of the polling became known it was apparent to political students that the Government would have considerable difficulty in retaining power if it persisted in the old foolish policy of refusing settlers the title deeds of the property they occupy and work. Any Government which lived up to the former and worthy traditions of Parliamentary life ■would resign before conceding such An important principle as is involved in the freehold-leasehold issue, but no owe ev.er expected that the Ward Ministry would adopt a dignified, much less an heroic, attitude where its personal safety was imperilled. Its working creed appears to be aptly summed up in the couplet He who fights and runs away, Lives to fight another day. The Rangitikei contest seems to indicate that another fort is about to be surrendered to the enemy in order to avert the possibility of a political defeat.