THE Press. TUESDAY. MARCH 10, 1905. ME SEDDON ON GENERAL POLITICO.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11528, 10 March 1903, Page 4

THE Press. TUESDAY. MARCH 10, 1905. ME SEDDON ON GENERAL POLITICO.

One of the secrets of the popularity of Hanmer as a heulth resort is the feeling of mental and physical well-being—of exhilaration, in short—which comes almost with the first few draughts of its fine mountain air. This, no doubt, explain- the breezy optimism of the Premier's speech. Nobody denies that the colony Ls in a prospeious condition at tlie present time. Mr Se'ldun wants to give the credit of our prosperity to the socialistic legislation" of the Government. The real reason is mat, as Mr Seddun himself stated in another part of his speech, the united prices of our staple products were never so good as at tlie present time. So long as the prices of frozen meat, butter, wheat, oats, etc., continue good, and we are blessed with jjood harvests and abundant increase- of our Hocks and herd-, we _hali continue to prosper in .spite of socialistic legislation, provided this is not carried to extreme lengtha. If the prices of our staple commodities should fall in the markets of the world, and especially if we should get one or two bad „ea~oi_i. we shall feel the pincn of depression. All the socialistic legislation which tiie wit of man can devisa in New Zealand will not put up the pikes in the English markets, and when these fall

our farmer.! will have le_ money to spend, and the effect"of this will he felt throughout the colony. Mr Seddon, it will be remembered, got into a good deal of trouble iv London owing to the novel views which he advanced in regard to the relations between the British imports and expoits, and the immense number of "golden

sovereigns" which he pictured as streaming out of the Mother Country in consequence of the excess of imports. We fear, judging from his remarks at Hanmer in regard to New Zealand exports and import-, that he has not yet fully grasped tlie economic bearings of this question. It is undoubtedly a good thing to see our exports increasing. A faliiny-off in imports, however, may result from two or three different cause., and is not necessarily a good sign. It may show, for example, that the spending power of tlie people has diminished, that they are practising greater economy, that there is less borrowing from outside lenders, or that 1f."..-? capital is coming in for investment. Only very can fa! investigation would enable one to deterr.il-a 'ho real significance of the figures quoted by Mr Seddon. Tha I'ri."".ii..i-'s i-rn:-::ks about the loan seem to indicate either that 'he himself does not know much about the workings of the London •Stock Exchange, or else lie thinks the people of 'Hanmer are not very well-informed on the subject, and he may presume upon their ignorance. The facts on Mr. Seddon's owii showing are that the Government offered tlie loan at £94 10s, that tho publio refused to come in ait. fhat price, that the underwriters are saddled with very nearly the whole of the loan, and that the net amount which the colony will receive after paying underwriters' commission and other charges will be only £91 4s, or £91 14s, at the outside. Mr. Seddon, the other day, ashed why the underwriter- then-elves did not apply for the loan. The answer, we should say, Ls very simple. If they' had done so they must have paid the subscription price for it, namely £94 10s, unless they had a private understanding with the Government that their applications were to be put in merely to give the loan a fictitious appearance of success, and that they would be allowed to deduct their commission and other charges from the amounts for which they subscribed. Such a transaction would t in our opinion, have been decidedly improper, and we cannot flhink that Mr. Seddon would seriously urge that it ought to have been carriedjout. On thej other hand, seeing that the underwriters have to carry tlie loan, if it is not taken up by the public, he cannot expect them to pay for it any more than they are comprlled to pay. Mr. Seddon fiutiter says:—'•Ninety-four pounds "ten shillings -was tlie price the Govera- " ment fixed, and till, investors could either " take it or L-ave it- Th. amount at l.i'.h ir.vjsti.-as will ultimately -get the . :i will il;puid on tho price at which the utij.rwriters consent to unload. The Govc.'-iiii.-r.t have made sure of the loan— a j a price—by getting it underwritten, but they cannot dictat. to the British investor as to what price he should give for it. We ought, perhaps, to apologise for inflicting this elementary explanation upon our read-is. The moral, however, is an important one. namely, that the reception of tho loan shows that for some time we ought to "go slow" in the matter of fur- J | ther borrowing. Mr. Seddon states that although Parliament ap_propriated two millions for public works last session, it would be found that not more than 50 per cent, of the money had been spent. This is, so far, satisfactory, as showing that the Government realise tlie need for economy, but it would have been a far sounder policy had they asked Parliament to appropriate only one million, the amount which, according to Mr- Seddon, they have actually spent. Had they done this, it would have created a much more favourable impression at Home, and, in till probability, the loan would have met with a better reception. Space fails us to deal with all the topics touched upon by Mr. Seddon in his speech. His references to the mail service- are va_ue, tlie only point at all clearly stated being that, the Government intend to continue the San Francisco mail service. Why an Imperialist lik_ Mr. .ieddan should ask us to Bubsidiae a foreign line, belonging to a country bent on annexing British trade wherever it can—a line

whoee steamers will be user! as armed cruisers against Great Britain iv the event of war—we cannot ima.'ine. especially when it is open to the Government to make ainiiifrvnae_t_ for im all-red mail sen-ice via Vancouver. Mr. Seddon'ts statementas to how and why the- Vancouver service was "taken from" New Zealand puts the matter incorrectly and unfairly. The contractors did their best to come to terms with the New Zeaksnd Government, ami the latter for months did not even vouchsafe them the courtesy of a repiy to their letters. Being able to get fair terms from the Queensland Government, the contractors accepted them, but the New Zealand Government are simply and solely to blame for tho service not being retained by New Zealand.