The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1887.

Evening Star, Issue 7280, 3 August 1887, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1887.

The reappearance of Sir John Hall on the political stage was anticipated with a considerable degree of enthusiasm by many who regarded him as the coming man. Great things were expected of him. He has occupied a conspicuous place in the front rank of New Zealand politicians, and hold many high offices of State. But he has spoken, and expectation is dead. His speech at Lceston must have completely disillusionised those who were prepared to accept him as a leader. It is not possible to avoid pronouncing it a failure and a disappointment. Weak to a surprising degree, abundant in petty details, and absolutely destitute of even the vestige of a policy, the only impression its perusal leaves on the mind is that of dreary inanity. That it was marked by Sir Joun Hall's characteristically cautious reticence and everabiding fear of committing himself goeß to show that he has not acquired a firm grip of the situation. Something more than mere suggestions of possible small economies is now required. The slough into which the Colony has been plunged by a laborious succession of extravagant Governments necessitates the Utmost vigor of the people and their representatives to drag the coach of State on to sound and safe ground again. Sir John Hall does not seem to fully realise the position. He is not specially remarkable in this respect, for neither does Major Atkinson, nor Sir Juuus Vogei/, nor Sir Robert Stout A political revolution, such as all of them seem utterly unable to comprehend, has sot in. The "roar" for retrenchment is the thunder of reform reform in all the branches of the State; and if our public men are unable to rise to the occasion, they must accept their dismissal with what grace they may. Sir John Hall's speech reads like an echo of the long ago. The little economies he proposed to consider possible—for he was careful not to commit himself positively to anything—will by no means satisfy the people. A few hundreds in one direction and a few thousands in another, a pitiful scraping everywhere, and vague echoes of the popular demand for retrenchment generally, are altogether insufficient for the occasion. Yet these are the scanty crusts he offered to the Leestofa meeting, and in such scant o Jcring we read his condemnation. As usual with politicians of the old school, a large'portion of his speech was made up of statements affecting the doings of others. It may be said of him, as of the Boubbons, that he has "learned nothing, and forgotteH nothing." What is it to the people of New Zealand now that certain things were done, or omitted to be done, in the lar past? Will he not—will they all not—understand that the vital questions which now engage the public mind are those which affect the future ? We cannot recall the past, and the mere denunciation of the misdeeds of others is inutile. Some faint perception of this seems to have occurred to him. " It is not wise," he said, " or neces- " sary to inquire who is to blame. Oar "time would be better employed in con- " sidering what can be done to lift the "Colony out of its present difficulties." Bat this sensible-remark was only uttered towards the close of his speech, after he had spent considerable time in instituting comparisons between his own Government and the Governments that preceded and followed it. And what was the remedy 4 he prepbsed for our idifficultieei ? To•" redress the balance of trade by exporting ijore and importing less." That 1 is a very simple solution, and the phrase sounds wel). Nobody will differ with him as to the desirability of doing these things. Bat as well mighty physician recommend a patient who Is troubled with sleeplessness to sleep more. At-present we export every available pound weight of surplus produce, and import only what is required for the wants of the population. When we seek for further elucidation of this proposal to," redress the [balance of trade," what do we find? An exhortation to "export more by reducing the cost of growing produce," and to "look forward to'the establishment and encourage-

ment of local industries.'* What our producers will eay to the first part of this I wonderful proposition it requires no prophet to tell us. So far as they are concerned, Sir John Hall's advice will be about as palatable as that Of the late Duke of Nobfolk t6 the starving population of England: to Swallow curry powder in hot water by way of allaying the pangs of hunger. Strange to say, the people of England did not take kindly to the diet, nor is it likely but producers will. Then, as to imports; can any-, thing be more delightfully va&ue than the reference to rt encouragement bflocal industries" ? When capital and labor can both be profitably employed in local industries, they will spring up in our midst, as they have don© elsewhere. "I believe that to a "very large extent they will employ <( our growing population," he said. Surely such a string of commonplaces was never put together by any. prominent public man before, fittt capital will not be invested without a prospect of sufficient business and adequate profit; ncr Will labor a<Mept less than what is deemed a fair wage. If the two things are incompatible, how is the desired result to bo brought about r To this question Sir John HAll replies after his own peculiar fashion. He apprehends dangers from pushing too far the doctrine of Protection. But he is far from being a Freetrader. He says, truly enough of Protection, that it "will necessarily raise the cost of living in this country," and that the Customs revenue should to the utmost extent be raised from luxuries. Yet he would impose special duties on such things as our people can manufacture. These various statements arc quite irrecohcile&blo. Here arc several distinctly antagonistic propositions. He would. encourage local industries by a measure of Protection, yet would impose duties of Gu.stdmb, chiefly on luxuries, and would find, or create, employment for our people by a process Which would increase the cost of living. Protectionists and Freetraders both may well reject such Laodicean doctrines and their exponent. la his desire to levy taxation by Way of Customs duties, Sir John HAll is at one with Major AtKinmon. This easiest of all wayß for increasing the revenue is the customary resort of administrators who lack the ability to devise more equable methods. It never seems to occur to them that Customs duties press most heavily on those who possess least, or that they arc the weightiest known form of taxation. One of the four rules laid down by Adam Smith, and which, are universally accepted as canons of political economy, is that the State ought to obtain as much as possible of the whole amount which is really levied from the taxpayer. This ib not the case with duties of Customs, for the merchant must have a profit on the tax which increases the first cost of his merchandise, and the retailer must have a profit on the doubly enhanced price. Thus the consumer is trebly taxed. But it is so easy to add an extra penny or an additional 5 per cent, to the Tariff that the ordinary run of politicians insensibly adopt that course to replenish a depleted exchequer. We have heard a great deal lately about " the equality of sacrifice." Equality of taxation would be very much more to the purpose. The demands of the country are very simple." They are twofold—retrenchment of expenditure and no increase of taxation. From these direct points the people must not suffer themselves to be dissuaded by any party cries nor by any exuberance of sophistical oratory. The bare, hard problem that our public men have to solve is how to keep our expenditure within our income. Sir John Hall's speech throws no light upon this subject. . He has not contributed a single idea towards the desired solution ; and if his claim to leadership rests on no better foundation than was disclosed in his speech at Leeston he may at once renounce 'it. ; -