MR ROSS AT ROSLY.

Evening Star, Issue 7251, 30 June 1887, Page 1

MR ROSS AT ROSLY.

It has been the custom of late to underrate Mr Ross in the capacity of a politician. It has been the fashion of critics to deride his abilities, to dub him an old fossil, and to assert it as very unlikely that he would ever be elected again for the seat he now holds. We must confess ourselves to have been agreeably surprised by the substance and method of his speech on Friday night. In a few short sentences he pointed out with exceptional clearness the financial disorganisation of the Colony, which has been the result of the last few years of depression. He then assured his hearers that the question that had been before the House during the last session was not that of Freetrade and Protection, but retrenchment—such retrenchment as would render an increase of taxation unnecessary. He pointed out that it was the Government who had raised the cry of Protection, in order to appeal to the country upon it, and that the majority hud only before them the »dea of reducing the expenditure. In support of this ho instanced with considerable force that it was proposed by the Ministry to place a duty on macaroni, vermicelli, tapioca, sago, and semolina—articles which had previously been free; while the duties on rice and maizena were to be, increased. Now, none of these articles can be manufactured in the country, and, by imposing a duty on them, there was no ideaof protectingnative industries, that by these duties the Government would gain a large increase in revenue, and that the Opposition recognised the fact that the Colony would bear no more taxation, while the House was unwilling to trust the Ministry with more money to spend. In dealing with the question of educational expenditure Mr Ross put very clearly and succinctly the arguments against the adoption of a minimum school age of six instead of five, as at present. If it be the case, as he says it is, that the effect of raising the age to six would be to close 2QO country schools, which could ill be spared, we should certainly hesitate to recommend such a course. But that is not what '8 proposed. The aim is to raise the age so that the schools in the large towns—and these only—shall no longer be nurseries, as they are to a considerable extent just now. We regard it as one of the great virtues of our present system that schools are scattered every few miles throughout the country. We should hesitate a long time before adopting a method of retrenchment which would close a very large number of country schools. The es? istence of a school for his children within a reasonable distance is so often an'inducement to the best class of settler to take tip land, and make a home in far-away valleys, that we should earnestly oppose the closing of such schools as being likely to affect the policy of land settlement in no small degree/ But the plan which. Mr Ross recommence" of reducing the capitation allowance by 10s per head, without regard to special conditions in special districts, would, we fear, militate still more seriously against educational efficiency in thinly-populated districts than would the raising of the school age from five to six. The result of the adoption of either method of economy would be a saving of between £40,000 and £50,000 a-year. The practical course to pursue is for the Department, through the Minister, to recommend such methods of economy to the prescribed extent of £40,000 to £50,000 as would cause the least injury or change to the present system. So long as the result of an economy of £50,000 at least is attained wc shall be content. It is at the nether end of the Erimary system that we think economy can e best effected. -.

Into his comments upon the cost of the railway system we shall not now follow Mr Ross. He thinks that " £700,000 was " much too large a sum to expend on the " manage nent of the railways, and that if in "the hands of a private company they could "be managed for a much less sum, and far " more satisfactorily to the public." We do not look with favor on the proposal to lease our railways. We contend that they should be handed over entirely to a Board of say three competent men—the chairman to be possessed of the highest expert knowledge, who should be chaiged with the duty of administering them on sound business principles The experiment in this direction, tried by Victoria, has admittedly proved a~ success, and the fact that the Governments of New South Wales and South Australia have seen fit to be guided by its results amply warrants this Colony in following suit.