Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 81, 1896. A GOOD SPEECH.

Evening Post, Volume LII, Issue 58, 31 July 1896, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 81, 1896. A GOOD SPEECH.

The ex-Colonial Treasurer made last evening probably the best Parliamentary speech of his career, and it was a distinct gain to the Government that he was in his place to come to its aid against suoh a doughty foe as Mr. Geobge Hutchison. But it was mainly in answer to Sir Robeet Stout's criticism of the financial position that the member for Awarua addressed himself, and it is matter for regret that the senior member for the City was not present to hear the very able though by no means conclusive arguments that were projected against the contentions advanced by him during the first evening of the debate. The strong point of Mr. Wabd's reply lay in his protest against th& unfairness of those who oppose the financial policy of the Government in charging Ministers with abandonment of their non T , borrowing declarations because great liabilities have been incurred for the purpose of advances to settlers, the purchase of., native lands, and the resumption of private states, not to speak of the guarantees to the Bank of New Zealand,, .which, he might have added, are sometimes included by their adversaries in the aggregate of the increase to the public debt. As to the bor- i rowing for advances to settlers, it was well urged that it is unreasonable to treat the sums advanced as in any sense expended, and for our part we think it only fair that when this liability— for which there is ample cover— is quoted as an addition to the public debt, it should always be specifically set out. It may, indeed, be argued that it is no more an addition to the public debt in the ordinary sense than is the guarantee to the Bank of 'New Zealand. That is to say, that it js a liability with ample cover in the form of a tangible asset. Mr. Waed dwelt upon this portion of his theme with much force and directness. How, he argued, could the acquisition of the vast areas of native lands that had been purchased by the Government bo called an addition to the publio debt in the sense of the abandonment of their non-borrowing policy ? And we are bound to say that it appears to us a good, sound, and necessary investment, made in the interests of the 1 country. Why, then, should it be charged against Ministers that they have abandoned "self-reliance" because they have purchased native lands for the necessary settlement of the people, knowing, as we all know, that the longer it is delayed the more must be paid? And, if this argument is sound, it applies with greater force to investments such as Cheviot, which is earning interest upon the money borrowed, and increasing in value as a security because of the improvements being effected, besides serving the first essential of close settlement so necessary to the wellbeing of the country. . We desire to be fair to the Government; besides, Ministers have so many sins to answer for that their virtues should notj go unrecorded, and chief among their services to the people appear to us to be the Advances to Settlers and the Land for Settlements Acts. To Mr. Waed belongs the credit of the first j to the Hon. John M'Renzib the last; and it must not be forgotten that they were the first public men of this hemisphere who had the courage to present such progressive measures for approval of Parliament. Returning to Mr. Wabd's argument, he declared that after deducting amounts for the investments mentioned, during the past fix years the publio indebtedness of the colony had been increased by £4,928,000, but of this amount the people were only called upon to pay interest on £301,774, which at 3£ per cent, was £10,500 per annum, whioh, if distributed over the whole of the population of the colony, meant an increase of 3jd per head per annum; and for this they had got roads and bridges, railways, &c. The accuracy of this remarkable deduction we shall question later. Just now we wish to give a fair presentation of the case for the Government, and have not space for criticism. On the subject of Sinking Funds the exTreasurer had various ingenious arguments to offer. After all, what were sinking funds ? Simply contributions from Consolidated Revenue, and how could their appropriation be called borro.wing ? This is much the same as though, after discharging a liability by payment to a trust account, and taking credit for the amount, you regain possession of the sum, and account it nonborrowing because it is the same money. This may bo said to be a fair Illustration of the ex-Treasurer's financial methods. Then again, as to the Sinking Funds of Local Bodies he declared with much emphasis that the money had not been taken, a statement that hon. gentlemen opposite received with so much merriment, that he was constrained to

add that though the funds had not been seized debentures had been issued against | them. Why Mr. "Waed ~ should permit himself to indulge in such transparent jugglery as this has always been difficult to understand. And at this point he urged, and as if not not for the first time, that upon all loans interest and sinking fund should be paid annually together. Such a system, he conr tinued, would prevent such continuous attacks upon the Government. Quite so . but it is the old homely adage of the horse and the stable-door once more, and we may add, without any desire to be offensive — Who stole the horse ? The idea is good and sound, but if we mistake not it did not originate with Mr. Waed. The credit of it, we believe, belongs— and if so he should have it — to that very capable financier the Hon. G. F. Richardson, whose absence from the present Parliament has been a distinct loss to the country, and this notwithstanding the fact that Mataura has been most worthily represented by the sitting member. Mr. Waed, in his peroration, naturally dilated upon the advantages that, from his point of view, had flowed to the country from the policy of the Government of which he had been so long a leading member. Further, he reproached the Leader of the Opposition in that he had not vindicated his line of action by stating to the House and the country what his policy would be, and in what particulars he could claim that it would be more beneficial to the colony than that of the present Government. "Why had he not done so, Sir ?" To which the hon. and gallant gentleman may have mentally interjected — " Because you would steal my political clothes if likely to fit."