THE PREMIER’S STRICTURES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11049, 29 August 1896, Page 4

THE PREMIER’S STRICTURES.

The Peemiee was not very happy yesterday morning in describing those members of the Liberal Party who opposed the Loan Bill as “weak-' kneer?,” and in declaring that they had previously supported the Vital principle of the measure by voting for the Land for Settlement* Act. It is only necessary to mention that Mr Saunders, Mr W. H. Montgomery and Mr M’JSab wop© among the opponents of the Bill to. satisfy everyone who knows anything about our public men that the defec-. tiou of a considerable section of the party was in no way due to the timidity of its members; These 'gentlemen were all specifically pledged to a “nonborrowing ” policy, and however much they may have wished to support the proposals of the Grovernment, their first duty was to observe their obligations to their constituents. It would have required much less courage, all things considered, to vote with the majority, and. remembering the loyalty displayed by nearly all the Independent Liberals during the recent no-confidence debate, we cannot help thinking that Mr Seddon was ungrateful, as well as unjust and discourteous, in making use of the offensive term he applied to some ef their number. As to the comparison the Premier drew between the Aid to Public Works Bill and the Land for Settlements Act, we can only say that it seems to us far too strained to justify an attack upon his political; friends. The loan procured under the Land for Settlements Act -was to ail intents- and purposes in the same category as the one obtained under the Advances to' Settlers Act. ®he interest, in both cases was provided by the people who enjoyed the direct benefits of the measures, and was not an addition to the burdens of the general body of taxpayers. The Aid to Public Works Bill, on the contrary,, proposes to borrow : money for the construction of railways which may or may not; be brought to a “paying point” within the next twenty years, and in any event w 11 impose a very grave responsibility upon the colony. And, in addition, to all this, there is the plain fact that the Land for Settlements Act and the Advances to Settlers Act formed part of the Ministerial policy at the general election, while l the Aid to Public Works Bill, if ever thought of at all, was never mentioned by a single member of the Cabinet. We do not altogether disapprove of Mr Seddou's proposals. We recognise that it is a perfectly safe and proper thing to borrow money for the prosecution of remunerative public works, but we maintain that any material departure from the policy of 1893 should be referred, to the con-, stitueneiea. We firmly believe that the great bulk of the electors are ready to trust the Ministry with the expenditure of a moderate loan, but we contend that they should be consulted, by the referendum if possible, before being committed to a reversal of the non-borrowing policy of three years ago.