SIR JULIUS YOGEL'S ADDRESS.

Evening Star, Issue 7286, 10 August 1887, Page 1

SIR JULIUS YOGEL'S ADDRESS.

There was a mournful cadence in the speech of Sir Julius Vogel, ominously suggestive of the end. The pathetic personal appeal to the sympathies of the audience, with which he wound up his peroration, may be accepted as the requiem of his Ministry. He labored hard to make out a case for staying judgment; but it was pleading a hopeless cause, and evidently h* knew it. Of course he indulged in the financier’s luxury of figures; and, although he handled these with characteristic dexterity, he failed to satisfy anyone that his Government had not been extravagant, or that retrenchment was not necessary; He has given us one set of figures and Sir Robert Stout has given another, and they exhibit as great differences as if they were each endeavoring to disprove the other’s accuracy. This is another illustration of the “ happy family ” business. Then Major Atkinson has tabulated the financial Sosition past and present, and his gnres are different from either. Sir John Hall has stepped into the breach with figures entirely differing from all three, and none of them has yet succeeded in convincing the public that two and two do not make four. What is the use of this display of arithmetical fireworks ? Supposing any or all of them to be correct, what then ? They utterly misunderstand the real question before the public, which is that, whatever has happened in the past, there must be a change for the better; in other words, more economy in the future. The people of New Zealand do not care to gather up spilt milk; they want"to prevent waste in the future. Sir Julius Vogel is resolutely blind to this condition of the public mind. He still argues that the people are not in earnest in demanding retrenchment, and that they are unwise to refuse increasing their debts by further borrowing, and their burdens by further taxation. He has fallen upon evil times. He may be—perhaps he is —“a daring pilot in extremity,” but to carry on afl sail in a tempest is to wreck the ship. He displays a marvellous lack of originality. His only remedy for depression is to borrow some more money. Ministers, he said, had not been able to “prevent the less power of ex- “ penditnre following on a less expenditure “of public money.” This is a spendthrift’s argument. If a man whose pockets are empty can obtain a loan his “ power of expenditure” will be temporarily increased, no doubt; but what will follow when it is gone ? That consideration does not seem to trouble Sir Julius Vogel. ‘.‘Eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow ye die.” But we have eaten and drank and been merry, and now we mourn our folly in sackcloth and ashes. Sir Julius Vogel seems to complain that our people do not conceal the true state of affairs, and commends the conduct of the Victorians, who smother their anguish and “never speak of their own Colony,” This is advocating an ostrich policy. What should we gain by It? Rather be it said that it is creditable to, and characteristic of, the honesty and sound sense of the people of New Zealand, that they face their troubles manfully, and demand an abatement of them by the retrenchment of expenditure, even at the risk of having to forego some of those things which they have come to consider as necessaries. This is the only true policy for the future, and Sir Julius Vogel is not the man for the position. It is not now a question of “ Vogel with the brake on.” The brake has been put hard down, and the Ministerial team has been prevented'from rushing headlong to ruin. They must not be entrusted with the reins again.

It was not possible for Sir Jclid3_ Vogel to omit the opportunity for enforcing the monstrous doctrine that, because the people were practising habits of thrift and temperance, the State should screw more taxation out of them. There can be no inducement for any man to limit his expenditure if it is to be understood that the State will take more from him in consequence. “Increased revenue,” he said, was absolutely “neces“sary because of the way the Customs “ returns had fallen.” This has occurred, he alleges, partly through the people having become more temperate, partly through the fall in the value of commodities, partly “through a lessened power of expenditure “ consequenton the less expenditure of public “(that is, borrowed) money”; and, also, “ largely through the great contraction of “local industries and the employment “of people upon them.” That- the people have become more temperate is no reason why they should be more heavily taxed; that the commodities they require are cheaper does not justify taxation calculated to raise prices; that they spend less because they borrow less is not a reason for extra taxation, but the contrary; because there is less interest to pay to the foreign bondholder. And it may be said here that it is a poor country that depends on borrowed money for its prosperity—a fact which Sir Julius Vogel now ignores, But not very long since he preached tins faithful and temperate doctrine: “Itis a mistake to “ suppose that borrowed money is the cause of “prosperity. Long before the borrowed “ money was spent in any quantity, after the “ policy of 1870 was proposed, the Colony “ was replete with progress.” These were not idly-spoken' words. They constitute sentences ■in a carefully-prepared Financial Statement delivered in 1884, when Sir Julius Vogel exalted public anticipation to the highest pinnacle by his declaration that under nis fostering care the counliy would “rouse, itself “ from its apathy and spring forward with “ leaps and bounds of progress.” And now, after three years of office, during which he has had almost unlimited sway in matters of finance, he is compelled to; confess that the only way he is able to discern out of the difficulties under which Ne'v Zealand labors is to borrow more. , At ■'r.e time he said : “ With common prudence we “need have no more financial embarrass- “ ment or vexatious taxation.”. And now he admits the existence of “ financial embarrassment,” and advocates “ vexatious taxation.” i

As to the assertion that there has been a “ contraction of local industries, and the employment of people upon them,” nothing comd well be farther divergent from truth and fact. It is difficult to understand how he could have ventured on such an erroneous statement. A Government return dated January 28, 1887, furnishes “results of the Census” taken in March, 1886, “ relating to manufactories, machines, and works,” from which the following statistics are extractedln 1881 the; total number of “industries” in New Zealand was 1,643, and the number of hands employed 17,938. In 1886 there were 2,268 “industries,” employing 25,655 bands. Further, the value of land, buildings, machinery, and plant devoted to > local industries increased from £3,605,000 in 1881 to £5,697,000 in 1886. Here there is an expansion, 1 and not a contraction, of these industries, an increase in the number of hands employed, and also of the (japital invested. It is questionable whether any colony in Australasia could show a better record of progress, notwithstanding the nonsense talked by Protectionists.; How Sir Julius Vogel could make such a tremendous blunder as this passes all comprehension. fint the fact goes to show , how the desire to prove a point can carry an overzealous advocate. -But what shall be said of his facts and figures after this ?

Sic Julius “implored” the people to “ refrain from riding for a fall. ” The advice was well; intended, no doubt; but it is •better even to ridefor a fall than toneme to pertain grief over impossible fences. The Movement have erected two such fences. is labelled “ Increased Tamjbion,” andTthe other is branded “More Borrowing."Let the people beware how,they try either. We do not care just now toexpose the; Protectionist fallacies by which he sought to secure the. Bympathiee*of his audience. It will be time - enough to do that When toucan explain <his|ndion-

lons aMf** 1011 that “ colonists are ‘"working for the Chinese, Malays, Kaffirs, ••and the poorly-fed artisans of Europe, “and persons who were 'earning small “wages in Great Britain.” It is not possible to criticise such an outrageous allefatlon. The only possible conclusion is that e was very hard pressed for an argument in favor of the policy of Protection, which to him means neither more nor less than the policy of extorting extra taxation from the people. When he told the story of the squatter who imported snakes to protect himself against human beings, he, quite unintentionally, gave one of the best and most appropriate illustrations of Protection, its dangerous character and detrimental consequences, that the most ardent Freetrader could ever have imagined. The snakes were used to protect the minority at the risk of the majority, and that is exactly what Protection does. We thank Sir Julius Vogel for having unconsciously enlightened the public as to the nature of his policy.