The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1887.

Evening Star, Issue 7250, 29 June 1887, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1887.

To say that Sir Robert Stout evaded, rather than answered, the charges brought against his Government, is but to indicate that his speech was characteristic. No one knows better how to turn and twist facts and figures so as to “ make the worse appear the better cause.” A mere perfect adept in the art of sophistry, with the exception, perhaps, of his tutor, Sir Julius Vociel, never trod tiie political stage. The seemingly sound, hut really erroneous, postulate upon which lie based his whole argument—that “an increase of population necessarily “ means an increase of Government expenditure ”—is incapable of proof, and, indeed, contrary to the fact. A few thousand people—so,ooo is his own number —scattered over all New Zealand cannot possibly necessitate nor justify additional departmental expenditure, except, perhaps, in a very few isolated instances. When he proceeded to argue that the proposed increased taxation by way of Customs duties would not amount to more per head of the population than was_ formerly paid, he simply reasoned in a circle. Granting that his conclusion, so far, was correct, by bis own admission the people have less spending power, and the increase of taxation in this direction to the old standard of £2 6s per head would press more heavily upon them than it did formerly. While on this topic, as we have often done before, we would again press upon the public attention that tliis sum of £2 6s per head is not a matter to be passed so lightly over as Sir Robert seems to treat it. It is not £2 6s per working man, but £2 6s each upon every working man and tarh member of hin fami/j/ ' —no matter how youmj, Thus, a man out of his earnings, who lias a wife and four children, is taxed £l3 16s annually on bis' spendings; not on bis earnings. We take Sir Robert's figures—they are not ours.' But he stein; to'think that because prices have fallen the Government should reap the benefit rather than the people ; and so be would raise extra taxation and keep commodities dear. Me pursues his argument to the verge of puerility when in dealing with the Police Force he tells bis audiencethat when he took office there was one policeman to every 1,203 of the population, and that now there Is only one to, 1,265—fr0m which lie calculates that the cost of the force is actually Ad per head less than it was. This, lie said, “meant a considerable saving.” But the fact remains that in 1884 the vote for this branch of the Service was only £96,000, and that in. the Estimates of the present year it' is set down at £IOI,OOO —an increase of £/f,.Q00 But such appears to be his •deal of economy—less to the individual, but more to tiu. S.t(ite. All the “savings ” of which lie spoke ho vjjyntingly are based on the same fallacy, flo doaa,iot recognise that what the people Want, and ydiat they understand by retrenchment, is a diminution of taxation for the whole com-, inunity. It is not to the purpose to tell them that there is not an individual increase. They ask for an individual decrease, ami this apparently is not at all embraced in hia programme. As to the departmental savings quoted, it is quite impossible to follow or refute his assertions, for tiki simple reason that the scope of every department is constantly changing, embracing 10 Be"'® years much more or less than in others, _ 1L ho were taken literally, and a comparison made with 1884, Ids figures would ho anything but correct. For Instance, he savs there was a “saving of £31,400 “In the Treasurer’s Department ami “inland revenue.” But tho appropriation for tho Treasury and Land Departments in 1884 was jointly £210,460, whilst on the; Estimates for tho current financial year there is a sum of £407,838 set down for tho Treasury and Revenue Department, and, £113,307 for tho Land Department. Similarly ho speaks of a saving of £20,245 in the' Defence Department; when in truth and in fact tho Estimates for 1887-88 show an increase of £I,OOO on those of 1.884-85. It ' Is impossible to bring to a strict reckoning > financiers who juggle with figures as the mountebank does with balls in the air. But the best and truest test fif Jthese claims, to economy and retrenchment is eJJorded by the grand totals of expenditure,; In 1884, when the present Government assumed office, the total amount asked for by Ministers out of the Consolidated Fund was £4,012,000, and in 1887 the Estimates are charged with £4,272,000, showing an' increase of £250,000. The figures quoted

include the Permanent Appropriations, such ns the Civil list, interest on loans, and moneys paid under special Acts of the Legislature, such as the honorarium, which was formerly voted annually. To make an exact computation it is necessary to take these items into account, for the amount paid under special Acta alone has increased from £48,514 in 1884 to £231,054 in 1887, and the annual appropriation is relieved to a corresponding extent. In addition it must be remembered that the burden of charitable aid has been transferred from the Government to local bodies. These are hard, substantial facts which cannot be explained away ; and, viewed in this light, the list of “savings” paraded by Sir Robert Stout is absolutely imaginary and unreal. Even on his own showing the alleged savings—£92,27s—in some departments, are counterpoised by increases in other departments amounting to £09,340. But this is a fair sample of the disingenuous argumentation to which Sir Robert Stout is addicted. The same fatal facility of placing matters before his hearers in a false light pervades his whole speech. In dealing with the defence expenditure ho was especially disingenuous. 11c said that “ when he “ took oliice, on the 3rd September, 1884, “ there wore sixteen officers and 447 rank “ and file in what was called the Permanent “ Militia,” and that the cost was £60,296 5s Id. The "no penny gives the apparent grace of fact to the picture. Now, up to the present date, Parliament has never voted one penny for a “ permanent Militia.” The phrase occurs for the first time in the Estimates brought down this year. _ _ln 1884 the total appropriation for “ Militia and Volunteers” was no more than £28,360. In this year’s Estimates it is set down at £77,724—nearly £50,000 more. What is the explanation ? It is very simple, but it did not suit Sir Robert to make it. The Government have been boasting of their economy in the managementof Nativeaffairs. They are proud of their “one-policeman” system on the west coast of the North Island, and designedly oblivions of the undeniable fact that the prompt and energetic action of Mr Bryce rendered such a system possible. To bring that issue about, a largo force of Armed Constabulary were employed. These are no longer required. It was a temporary force formed for a temporary purpose, and could well bo disbanded. But our economical Ministers took the hulk of these meu into the service of the Government, and have constituted them a “ Permanent Militia,” with a number of start' officers to reileet or gather glory from the command of what, if permitted to continue, will become a standing army. This “ field force,” as it was then termed, cost £50,000 in 1884, and Ministers ask an equal amount to continue it is a “ Permanent Militia ” now. Why does Sir Robert Stout lend himself to such weak devices as these for throwing dust in the eyes of the electors ? Goes he deem them quite devoid of understanding when lie thus attempts to hoodwink them ?

As to his remarks on our railway system, it seems unfair to offer any comment. Some time ago he told a deputation that he did not understand the railway business ; and it is painfully evident that he said no more, nor anything less, than the absolute truth. Of course, lie took all his figures at second-hand, and consequently blundered vicariously. But in one direction Sir Robert Stout spoke for himself. With very bad taste and want of tact he uttered a “ warning,” which is of the nature of a threat, to the agriculturists. If it were not a mere hrntnm fnlmen, it meant this : that if agriculturists refuse to pay extra taxation for the encouragement of local manufactures they have no right to have their produce carried on the railways at present rates. ‘‘Cheaply ” was the word used ; but as produce is not carried cheaply now the suggestion is obvious. There are many things to be said on the questions involved in this consideration, and, as the elections proceed, no doubt wo shall come to a clear issue on this subject. Sir Roukrt professes to he neither a Freetrader nor a Protectionist, and truly he has never been accused of holding any distinct views on this issue. But it is pretty certain that hefoie the member for Dunedin East is elected he will have to range himself upon the one side or the other. Let him apply to himself what Major Atkinson said and he has re-echoed about “independent candidates.”