ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 247, 18 October 1893, Page 2

ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN.

MR PALMER AT LUCAS' CREEK,

Over a hundred electors assembled in tho schoolroom, Lucas' Creek, ISsb night, at the invitation of Mr Jaokßon Palmer, M.H;R. 'or Waitemata. Mr Inglis being voted to the cbair said ho hoped Mr Palmer would give a good accounb of his stewardship in fche past and let them know what was the difference between the political opinions Of Mr Monk and himself, because ab the end of the address bo, ,the Chairman, and other friends of Mr Monk had come to give tho Candidate a good rubbing down, Mr Palmer, on rising, «aid bbab he bad been the representative of the County for three yearß, and now, at tho expiry of that time, MY Monk camo forward and said thab ho (Mr Palmer) should not ba roelecbed, but) thsJt tho electors should choose Mr Hunk in his stead. The electors would naturally ask what had he (Mr Palmer) done that he should be turned oub? What wrong had ho done or pleilgs broken that be should not bo re-elected, and whab were h'm principles as compared with Mr Monk's. Thab brought Lirn (o speak of his opponent. Mr Monk, he believed, to be an honest, hardworking, conscientious Settler of Now Zealand, with whom he ■still hoped to be friends, though opposed In a political battle. His political friend arid opponent had formed Conservative opinions which ho, as a Liberal, disagreed witb. Hia opponont had advancod arguments in favour of his opinions, and ho (Mr Palmer) would have to show thoy were wrong. However, ho gavo hi 3 opponent the credit of hia convictions, and he hopod that side would extend the same courtesy to him (the speaker). Hia opponent was a Conservative ; ho (Mr Palmer) was a Liberal, and the first difference ho would speak of was in regard to the LAND AND INCOME TAX. Mr Monk, as one of the chief members of the National Association, wa3 one of; the greatest opponents of tho present Oovornmonti in their change of tho incidence of taxation and finance. It waa trua Mr Monk had oondomned tho propdrfy tax, but if ib were repealed something olso bad to take its placo, and that something else, tha land tax, Mr Monk was bitterly opposed to. That waa as bad as advocating the property tax. Sir Harry Atkinson, the Conservative leader, had emphatically stated that tho property tax was a fair and jusb tax, and thab ho (Sir Harry) would koep it in force. So long as people returned members to keep Sir' Harry in power, so long did the property tax hang over the shoulders of the farmers as a crushing weight. When Mr Monk had to decide whether he would voto to turn Sir Harry oub and kill this iniquitous tax or keep Sir Harry in and the property tax on the people, he voted with his Conservative party and kept on the mx. Now, when lie (tho speaker) had pledged himself to repeal the property tar, he Carried out his plodge at once, nob by simply talking one way and voting tho other, but by acting practically and casting in his lot with thab party who were pledged to its repeal and who did repeal ib. ilad he nob carried out) his pledge to ita fullest extent 1 PROPERTY TAX V. LAND TAX. All know that the property tax was paid mostly by small and struggling farmers, for it charged all property of whatever kind, land, Cattle, goods, etc., and only made an exemption of £500. Now the land tax charges' on no improvements' whatever, and allows £5.000 worth of unimproved land free. Itrolieved the small farmer, and bib the targe squatter, and why should the equatter not pay ? Did nob the majority of the sqaatters not get their land from tho State ab has than its real value, arid then have our borrowed millions spenb upon it in railways, metalled road?, etc., raising its value ten fold ab the public expense ? And bad not the small farmers for Jfeafs to psy their unjust share (throngh the property tax) of tbe interest on these borrowed millions which had given so large aft nne'&f fted increment to tho squatters' land ? Why should not the squatter pay for ib himsolf and not the small farmer? The Government; had determined—through tho land tax—that for tho fubnre he shall. Let not the struggling farmer therefore believe not khe talk against this Government who had proved their friend and carried outtheir pledges'.' THE KAItAVAY COMMISSIONERSHe again differed frocn hia opponenb in frogard to the Railway Commissioners, lie was pledged to oppo?e the Commissioners, and he had done so. He had himself brought in a Bill to abolish thorn, and it had been defeated. The Government bad done likewise, aDd were defeated also. The Railway Commissioners were bhe "pet lambs" of bhe Conservatives and of his opponenb, whoso votes had been cast in favour of this triamvirate and against giving Vaile's railway scheme a trial on our Auckland railways. If we waro unfib to govern our own railways so were we also unfib to govern our Customs, from which we derived a greater income. Thoy had only to extend the principle to its logical conclusion and carry it through all our deparbraeobs and they were urrfittod to govern themselves at all.

THE UITEr. HOUSE. Hiss opponent bad said that tho Upper ITotise was simply a ropitition of tbo Lower House(ib now constituted. Was thab so? Ho (Mr Palmer) would leave it to his hearers to say if tho Upper House Simply passed all laws sent np to them by the Lower Bouse, or did they not throw out the Railway Bill and all other policy Bills Of the Government? His friend had Sacrificed .bio Conservatism and vvaa how (1 ready to dee the Upper House elective.- Why had ho dono fchis ? Ifc was easily to be seen. He said ib was to bo olected by tho " direcb taxpayer to mako it more Conservative," This, then, was the secret of his friend's dosire to see the Upper House elective. If it was to be' elected and become a 00-ordinate Chamber wibb the Lower House, and was to be elected only by tho wealthy, then he (Mr Palmer) was nob in favour of such a form of election. Why did not the Conservative party discover thab this Chamber should be elective when they were in power, and could bring abotit tbe reform ? While they nominated to thab Chamber tho nominating principlo was quite righb. bub now that the Liberals had the combating that principle wos quite wrong. O.VE MAN ONE VOTE. Continuing, Mr Palmer said, Why should only the direcb taxpayer vote ? The direcb taxpayers, through the land and income tax were estimated to pay aboub £360,000, but the public paid through the Customs nob this comparative sum, bub the enormous csra 6f £1,642,000, and why should nob the public (represented by manhood sutrraae) have a vote find voice ia how fchia enormous gum which they were paying was to be expended ? His opponent ha<: saici he was sorry for tho granting of one ram one vote. He (the speaker) rejoiced in the reform. If they bad not one man one vote, bow many of the womon would hove been enfranchised ? How many of them would have had the wealth? Yet his opponenb said " ha was in favour of the female franchise, and looked to the ladies to put him in." Hia oppononb was more boastful in rogard to the fair sex than he (Mr Palmor) was, as he only looked tc bis own tnerit and the faithful fulfilment of his duties in the past fco put him in. He would venture to predict tLab ho would geb as many vchos from the fair sex as bis opponenb. BOKROWING ANE BANFSUrTOY. Mr Monk had charged tba Government

witb borrowing insidiously, and ugain aasetted thafi bhe colony would soon be bankrupt. He (Mr Palmer) objected to this Continuous cry of the bankruptcy of tha colony, this continuous fouling of our own nesb, this Jeremiah the Propheb, these coniinuous pessimistic utterances. They were unpatriotic, and greatly injured our credit; and bis hearerß would know how Berious this was when be told them thab for conversion purposes they borrowed last year aver five millions of money. They tnew how little ib took bo creabe" a panic On a bank and spoil its credit. Ib book jnsb as ittle to affect the credit of a nation. Rumours of war would cause the consols to fall 10 per cenb. If they caused such a fall by crying bankruptcy in our stocks lasb year, tho 10 per cenb. on the five millions we borrowed would have been an increase on the colony' of half a million. As td increasing the national debb, Mr Palmer went into figures^ bo show bhab though the debb was nominally increased yeb in reality ib Was red need, instancing the Conversion of the £660,000 loan, the £4,258.000 consolidated" loan the £400,000 loan of the Colonial Bank which had all been converted. They had to pay £107 and £110 for their stock to gob back their own loan of £4,258,000 and thus had to pay £333,000 more to get it back, but by increasing to this amount their stocks they saved £53,000 a year interest, 4 per cenb. instead of 6 per cent. When the terms were worked oub this annual saving of intoresb, after deducting bhe increase of £333,000, waa over two millions. Mr Palmer went further into figures to show bhab though the net debb had apparently been incroased by £468,000, yeb in reality is had been diminished, though bhia yoar the Governmenb had to take over a large amount of accratioiis to the Sinking Fund and other bad legacies from tho Conservative Governmenb, DISTRIBUTION. Ho wished to repudiate the attack of Mr Monk upon himself and the two remaining northern members for want of unanimity, and nob getting enough money for roads. All the Auckland members would bear him oub thab they had worked amicably for the good of thoir districts. Why did Mr Monk nob quote correctly when he said they only got £9,000 for roads. As a matter of fact bhey got £12,224, and bhe figures wore thore to prove it, and he regretted hi 3 opponent had said this money waa simply obtained to catch votes. It was obtained because it was urgently needed. LAND OtTESTIO.V. Ha again differed from his opponent, wh° attacked the Minister of Lands' policy and tho Land Act, which had done moro to aetble bho land than anybhiflg else, whioh bad at last swepb away tho various administrations of land in the different province* and made ib the same for bbc <vholo colony. Ho could safely leave bhve peoplo of New Zealand to say who was right on bbc land question, He said his opponent also attackod tho Minister of Lands for stopping dutnmylsm, and charged him with acting liko a sleuthhound, or to thab effect. He bhonghb the honourable Minister deserved the credib of everyone for his action in bhab mattor. Whb this not a breach of bhe law, and was it nob the duty of tho Minister to uphold the law? NATIVE LANDB. The Governmenb had endeavoured to adminisber tho lands bho same to the black as to the white race by taking land for settlement from the Maori tho same as thoy did from the white people, by throwing ib open for sebtlement to black and white alike. Till the individual title was ascertained the purchase money or debentures carried interest, so no one Was injured. Settlement would be promoted among black and white alike, and tho rentals would soon rocoup 6be interest. Tho Government were prevantod from carrying out this by tho Conservatives. POST OmOE SAVINGS BANK FUNDS. His opponent had charged bhe Governmemb wibh taking £400,000 from the trust funds of Post Office, Trust Offico, Life Assurance, etc. This was no crime. Tho money was taken on Treasury bills, and had to bo paid back oub of this year's revenue, upon which thoy were a first charge. Tbe Government had aidod bheso institutions by taking their mtnoy ab interbst, as the money had to bo let oub to bring in interest. What bettor securities could bhey geb than thoy had deposited, namely,1 Imperial debentures guaranteed by tho English Government backed by tho Bank of England, and this colony responsible. GUM-TRADE. His opponont;, now that he wanted to bo electod, was very anxious to place tho gumdiggers upon the land, but) whab did he or the Conservative party do for the gumdijjgor when they were in power? Who alionated all tbo blocks and allowed bho owners to make the diggers little better than the serfs of Russia? Who advocated tho introduction of foreigners to clean oub tbe gumfialds? Who opposed tha Oumfiolds Bill and tbe truck clauses thorein. Was ib himself and tho Liberal party 1 No. Tho gumdigger knew from bitber experience who was his friond, and wbo had been his enemy. Whab better class of citizens have they in tho colony than tho honesb, industrious settlers of tho Puhoi? and why nob bring in peoplo liko these to settle upon our land and improve tho colony and become of us, instead of flooding tho gutnfiolds with the Slavonic race from Dalmabia and Slavonia. Did Mr Monk endeavour to bring these reforms abouc, and who opposed him? He (tho speaker) did bo. No matter whab his opponenb might coy, ib was a well-known facb tbab wben this Parliament took office capital and labour varo ab cue an-1 other's bhroats. Where were their Btrikes and quarrels now 1 Mob in this colony. pAymeni of members. His opponenb was opposed to tho payment to members of £240 # bub he failed to read in his Speech any announcement; pledging himself to refuse the money or any part of it. No doubb bhe Conservatives bibtorly opposed bhe payment of members and would like none to bo able bo bake their seats in Parliament except the rioh. Then they could enacb laws for the future like they did in tho pasb—bhe properby tax for instance—to compel the poor to pay tho taxes that ought in fairness to be paid by tbe rich. This would suit them better than getting honestly paid for their services in Parliament. CONCLUSION. In conclusion, Mr Palmer said ib was a duty he owed the olectors to point oub tho difference in the political viows of Mr Monk and himself, as the electors bad to know this to decide whose viows coincided witb their own, He bad endeavoured to do this in a fair manner, giving Mr Monk credib for having formed his views conscientiously. If ho were defeated by Mr Monk, ho would be b6aten by a worthy and honesb opponenb, bub he was afraid his opponent's chances were absolutely hopoless. Mr Palmer also dealt with the chango of the incidence of local taxation in regard to its being made locally optional whebher theso taxes be on the improved or unimproved values. At the conclusion of tho address tew questions wore asked, several wbo had dome prepared to ask them stating to the meeting they had already been satisfactorily answered by Mr Palmer's speech. The questions were about the Cheviot estate, local rating, and setbling gnmdiggers upOfc bhe land. Mr IngTfltn moved, and Mr Sbevenson seconded, a vote of bbanks for past services of their representative Mr Palmer, and a vote of confidence in him as their future representative. On a show1 of hands this was carried onanimously.