FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1902.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 118, 14 November 1902, Page 4

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1902.

"RETAINED FOR THE DEFENCE." "O Dr. Findlay last night fully justified the encomiums contained in our article of Monday last, when it was written "that in the latest Ministerial candidate for the City the Government had secured an able advocate who, within the limits of his brief, should make the most of the case he has to argue, a man of considerable intellectual attainments, with the successful lawyer's happy knack of being able to present in the best light the merits of the cause he is retained to support." The new advocate for the Government declares that he Avill support his principals "in respect of every reform they have placed in the past upon the Statute Book, and in resided; of the future he will stand t>X them so long as

they' do their duty honourably by the country." The reforms that have been passed into statute law will be maintained, no matter what party succeeds to office, as Dr. Findlay knows full well ; while, as for his seeming confidence that the Government to which he has given his allegiance will do their duty honourably in the future, it is a wondrous thing in the light of their dishonour of the past. "There were other ways," he said, "of killing reforms than by repealing them. There was the indirect, but equally effective way of bringing them into disci-edit." How, we would ask, with the safeguards that surround them, can the operation of old-age pensions, or the Arbitration Act, be affected, excepb by the will of the country, as represented by Parliament? As for the Land for Settlements Act, there is only one amendment that is possible, and it is one that we have advocated from the beginning. As the law now stands it is a tremendous power for the reward of political services or the punishment of opponents — a power that should only be exercised by Parliament. Independent Boards should report to the House, through the Minister, what private estates should be resumed for close settlement, when it would be for the Legislature to decide the final issue. Such a reform would deprive the Government of tremendous, arbitrary, and far-reaching power. Those who are opposed to them would transfer "that power to Parliament. Is this conservatism or democracy? A large part of Dr. Findlay's speech was made up of airy but effective persiflage at the expense of his opponents and copious quotations from the Yearbook to show the unquestioned prosperity of the colony, and inferentially that the Seddon Government was the Providence that created it. We have never grudged, the Government the credit that belongs to them for aiding the industries of the colony, but we are not among those who seem to claim that the rule of Mr. Seddon has maintained the wool clip, increased the productivity of the land, secured regular seasons, and governed the rainfall. The truth is that this country is rich beyond compare in natural resources, and no Government is possible that can permanently slay its progress. It is possible to discount its future, to hypothecate its development by reckless finance, and that, as we hav,e repeatedly shown, is what is being done at a rate that if continued must soon spell disaster. It is this political Rake's Progress that we would stay, and it can only be stayed by deposing him from present possession of the State Treasury. Throughout his speech Dr. Findlay was nothing if not the special pleader retained for the defence. Of constructive policy he had none to offer. Even on the land question the one large matter of policy that mostly concerns tho welfare of the country — through which is the only sure and safe way to a reduction on the necessaries of life, he had nothing to offer beyond lav dation of the late John M'Kenzie — in which we cordially join — and gibes for his opponents. '"Could they trust them with the administration 'of an Act they had resisted so bitterly?" We answer they would divest themselves of the power of maladministration by placing in the hands of Parliament the control and disposition of private estates now held by Ministers. "Six landowners in New Zealand,' the candidate told his audience, "held so vast an area that its unimproved value amounted to over two and a half millions." Is not Dr. Findlay aware that Mr. Duthie, who was derided throughout tho evening as • a Tory of the most purple hue, has declared himself in favour of a progressive land tax in order to break up big estates? It is a. curious thing to find so trained an intellect as that of Dr. Findlay gravely arguing that the advances to settlers had made cheap money. The Act is a beneficent measure, but it cannot be said to havo affected the price of money in the financial world, except as against us in London, where the money we have loaned to our settlers is reckoned a. part of our consolidated deuv. "Seeing, as they all did," said the counsel for the defence, "that they must maintain a prosperous country, concessions had been made amounting in one way or another by the Government to the people of no less a sum than a million and a half. Railway rales had been reduced to an equivalent of £510,000. . . He was going to leave his answer to the criticism of the Government on the question of borrowing until he could do it justice." When that time comes we shall be glad to learn his justification for the borrowing of the moneys ostensibly for railway purposes that have really served to make these much-lauded concessions. Dr. Findlay as a lawyer will be able to state an opinion as to what would happen to the directors of a private railway, company, under the Companies Act, did they issue new shares and proceed to pay dividends from out of the new capital so obtained. Further, if he will probe the railway administration to the bottom he will find that large sums of fresh capita] in the shape of Parliamentary appropriations have been procured for plant, roll-ing-stock, and equipment that should have been provided out of earnings, while the latter have been dissipated in reckless and unwarranted concessions. Is this not robbing Peter to pay Po.ul? the first beiug the public and the latter those who receive the money in the shape of concessions. What, we ask Dr. Findlay, as a lawyer, would be the * liability under the Companies Act of any directors of a private company who put their names to such a balance-sheet? The defence of the "£4O steal" we deal with in* a separate article, and shall have more to say thereupon later on, and the exigencies of space prevent our following the new Seddonian any further in this issue. Yet he offered one piece of advice which we cannot pass. "He asked them to look with' susjricion on new friends, of whom they always had plenty at election times." If .the electors will lay this counsel to heart they will certainly ware Dr. Findlay, Avho is their newest friend, while Messrs,, Duthie, Aitken, and Atkinson are tried and trusty public men whose acts and services have won, as they deserved, the confidence of the people.