THE MINISTER OF LANDS.

Evening Star, Issue 8808, 25 April 1892, Page 1

THE MINISTER OF LANDS.

The Hon. John M'Kehzie is on the warpath in the present electoral campaign, and is making mighty efforts to induce the Bruce electors to vote for the Ministerial nominee. No doubt it would suit Ministers admirably that Mr Lee Smith should be returned, since be has declared himself prepared to support them through thick and thin. Whether it would be to the advantage or pleasure of the constituency to be represented by a member with no opinions of his own, who would vote according to orders, and be a mere joint in the tail which the Government wag, is another matter. We, however, can hardly believe that the settlers in the Bruce electorate will thus practically disfranchise themselves. The Minister of Lands addressed meetings last week at Gore and Milton, not ostensibly in the interest of Mr Lee Smith, but, as he himself Btated—and he ought to know —in fulfilment of promises given some time ago. It is of course purely aicidectal, although considerably opportune, that a byelection should happen to be going on. It was necessary, the honorable gentleman affirmed at Gore, that members of the Government should take every opportunity of meeting the electors face to face, because nine newspapers out of ten throughout the Colony were opposed to them. Thia may be interpreted to mean that; since the intelligence of the country, expressed through the Press, does not approve of their policy, Ministers are determined to turn the scale in their favor by an unscrupulous useof the platform, hoping to succeed, at least, in "tickling the ears" of the classes who are most politically powerful numerically. If Ministers are to be taken at th e val uat ion of Mr John M 'Kenzie, which would require o large Bwallow, the attitude of the Press is certainly incomprehensible, but, to use his own familiar quotation, "Facts are chiels that winna ding"; and factp, unfortunately, are against them. Judged by their professions they are a model Government, but their practice is very much out of accord, and it is by their deeds that they must be known and estimated. Mr M'Kenzie evidently realises that the exposure of the vicious principles of the Ministerial policy has been very complete ; he therefore avoids main questions, and endeavors to throw dust in the eyes of his audiences by extravagant statements as to alleged results and bombastic trumpeting of the wonderful things which have been done and are contemplated. The real objection to the Government, he affirms, is *' not so "much as to their policy as because fori "the first time in the history of New Zea-1 "land it had a Government representing* "the people of the Colony." This is of course pure bunkum ; but when we consider how the General Election in 1890 was influenced, and their conduct since they have been in power, the conclusion may correctly be arrived at that the very contrary is the case. Ministers avowedly base their policy on the interests of one class of the community, and administer public affairß upon the same lines. It is a class Administration, if ever there was one. Mr M'Kenzie claims that they have stopped the exodus from the Colony, created new hope for the people, endeavored to open up the laud for settlement, and "expended " public money for public works by a system "that prevented contractors from making "large profit?, and that gave working men «* full pay for their work." As to stopping the exodus, Ministers can hardly claim credit for the very natural consequences of so many men having gone to Australia, who found that they had gone further and fared worse, There is, moreover, no doubt that New Zealand, under the present Administration, offers attractions to the unsettled population in Victoria and New South Wales, but whether this is a desirable element in immigration admits of question. The impression, however, is abroad that in this Colony the working man is king, and that employment at high wages by the Government is certain should it not be obtained otherwise. A bitter harvest, we are iuclined to apprehend, will in due time be reaped from the unsound social economics of Mr Eallance and his colleagues. W T e do not condemn, and never have condemned, the application of the en - operative principle to the construction of public works; but the system now established, judging from what Mr Seddon himself has Baid, seems to go a good deal further, since the honorable gentleman boasted that men whom contractors would not employ, as being physically incapable, and the value of whose labor would be from 2s to 33 a day, would receive from 83 to 10s. It nny well be expected that " the halt, the lame, and the blind," not to epeik of the idle, incompetent, and thriftlora from all Australasia, j will pour into a country where such a halcyon state of things exists. MrM'KENzns, as a matter of course, makes a great point of the wonderful success which haa attended his administration of the Crown j lauds ; but, even if we accept his statements of facts and figures, the demonstration is that the existing land laws, which he so virulently condemns as being adverse to settlement and close occupation of the country, have served those purposes very effectually. As we have more than once pointed out recently, he has done<absolutely nothing except design and imitate—for it has not proceeded beyond imitation—an experimental scheme of small farm associations under the special settlement provisions of the Acts in force. All the rest is '' in the clouds." The real settlement which has taken placo during the last twelve months, on which he so loudly vaunts himself, is simply due to the land policy of the late Government and the careful and intelligent prevision of his predecessor in office. We note that his "withers" are not"unwrung" by the criticism to which he baa beenjiubjected with regard to the abandonment ot the Land Bill last year; and he seeks to make out a case against the Legislative Council, which hj not borne out by well - ascertained facts. It is true that many amendments of more or IeBS importance were made by the Council; but it is equally true that the members of that body, generally, were quite willing to waive all these with one exception—the depriving of perpetual leaseholders of the eventual right to the freehold—in deference to the opinion of the House. The eloquence of the honorable gentleman on the subject of the other amendments is but " beating the air." The Council clearly have a right to their opinions, to express them plainly, and to protest againßt what they consider impolitic. Under protest, they were willing to concede the very points which the Mioister now makes so much of—even the " one man one run," the good policy of which, as a, castiron rule, is exceedingly dubious, all circumstances considered. We are quite as desirous as the honorable gentleman can be to see the country closely occupied, and for the last twenty-threeyeara we have consistently advocated that this should be the main object of every Government; but tome of the means now proposed to this end are not, in our view, judicious ; and we do not think that sufficient consideration is given to the interests of the staple industries of the Colony—particularly the wool export, on whiob bo much depend*. The holding of extensive tracts of country by English oompanjes, and the fact that large runs are in the hands of mortgagees, are, beyond question, very serious evils; but the remedy by drastic legislation may prove worse than the disease, and the cost should be well oonnted before such measures as the Minister has determined upon are adopted,

In regard to the new taxation, Mr M'Kenzie merely reiterated the stock arguments, with which everybody ii cow familiar. He declared that the "Tory Presß " are responsible for the want of confidence engendered in financial circlet in the Home country a queer kind of reasoning, vhich amounts very much to this: that tho change in the incidence of direct .taxation would have excited no alarm had not its real scope and bearing been thoroughly exposed by the newspapers. It ic, however, gratifying to be assured that "the policy of the Government is to put " the people on tho land, and keep them in "the country." The general impression certainly is that the chief object is to keep up in the centres a large dependent population, who may be always available for agitation and for maintaining government by platform. Another end which, according to the honorable gentleman, Ministers have at heart, is to provide " that the rich should not get richer and the poor not get poorer"— a fine old Tory maxim, which we should hardly have expected from the Hon. John M'Kenzie. Would it not be more in accordance with common sense that, if possible, our economic arrangements tended to make the poor rich, even should the rich grow richer ?