THE NELSON EXAMINER Wednesday, June 3, 1857.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XVI, Issue XVI, 3 June 1857, Page 2

THE NELSON EXAMINER Wednesday, June 3, 1857.

and individuals,,, more to be feared. It would be to underrate &,!T rU " Cc - l ° SUPP( ? Se Umt the > Be " c °"'T tv •«»»■ liberty: they maintain civihz ition. Dk TocacsviLLg, Of Democracy in America, vol. v.,p. 230.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure, twenty pounds, ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goe3 down upon the dreary scene, and — and in short you are for ever floored." So exclaims that mercurial and indigent voluptuary, Mr. Micawber, giving in compact form the whole philosophy of the management of a private income. Now though this maxim cannot in all the rigidity of its truth be applied to a community and its public income or revenue, because of the certainty of its future existence as compared with that of an individual, its longer duration and the indefinite extent of its resources and their devolopment, yet, considering the temptation there is to a community, especially a young one, to run into debt, with the plausible pretext of effecting improvements and forcing its growth, it is better at all events to enter upon a system of public borrowing with something of the caution inspired by Mr. Micawber's maxim— than to rush into it with unhesitating confidence and sanguine anticipations of success, as if we had unlimited credit on posterity, and the Future were a Bank we had only to draw upon to secure the due honouring of our most extravagant bills. We are not quite satisfied that the Provincial Council has not given way in its late proceedings a little too much to the exciting indulgence of voting imaginary moneys for all kinds of improvements that can well be imagined. A Special Committee of Public Works has first recommended these improvements. A Debenture Bill to enable the Superintendent to borrow money to carry them out has gone through some stages, so that the separate items have again passed in review before the House. The amount authorized to be borrowed is £25,000. The Estimates have yet to be passed, in which we presume the portion of the ordinary and land revenue applicable to public works will be specifically appropriated thereto. So that till this k done, their proceedings upon the whole subject cannot be considered as complete. As however the Debenture Bill, we presume, will leave it to the discretion of Government whether or not to borrow money for the works recommended — not make it obligatory on them to do so— the responsibility will after all mainly rest with the Government and not with the Council : the Bill amounting to little more than an expression of the opinion of the Council as to what is advisable to be done. We think it may safely be said that all the works recommended would be beneficial and useful; and are such as should be at once executed if the question were only how to spend revenues actually in hand. But when it is a question of borrowing money to execute them, and saddling our future revenues with the payment of principal and interest, the propriety of engaging in some of the works becomes much more doubtful. The general principles which should guide us in the matter appear obvious enough. We may suppose all the proposed work? to be either remunerative, or not remunerative. By remunerative, we mean such as will produce a return in money equivalent to the outlay ol principal and interest upon them. By not remunerative, such as, however useful, will not do this. Of course, Government may always borrow money to conduct works that are both of public utility and remunerative. But unfortunately there are very few such. Then of works winch are not remunerative in this sense, some are absolutely necessary; some only beneficial. Among the necessary public works which do not pay for themselves are such as Court-houses, public offices, locks-ups— for all of which it is proposed by the Council to borrow money. Now 'we think it is most legitimate and fair to borrow money for these purposes; for the obvious reason that the benefit of them is to be reaped by the community in future years as much as by ourselves, and it is unfair that the whole burden of their first erection should be laid upon the people of the present year. If wholly paid for by the settlers at present in the Province, these buildings would be the property of the present settlers, who would therefore (estimating their rights as owners from the principles which rule in cases of private ownership) be entitled to exact from new-comers and others a rent or payment for the use of them. The original cost, then, should be divided between all -wLo use and reap the benefit ot such works. It follows, that the whole cost should be distributed over so many years

only as the \vork3 respectively are calculated to last; because you have clearly no right to make a future population pay for benefits which only yourselves will partake of. Therefore in all such cases, such arrangements should be made, in borrowing money, as will secure the repayment of both principal and interest within the period at which the public works may be expected to fall into decay or become useless. For example, if you borrow to build a Court-house or Gaol, then you should determine how many years the building you erect is likely to last— say twenty or thirty years. Then the whole sum borrowed, with the interest, should be made payable within twenty or thirty years. This might be done by borrowing upon annuities: say a building cost £5,000, and would last thirty years ; then the question is, for how much a year, for thirty years, can you get 565,000 now? And each year, of course, you would have to put upon your Estimates a sum which would be the answer to the above question. This is unquestionably the fairest way of arranging for payment of moneys borrowed for necessary and unremunerative works, which benefit the community for any time to come. And if the works are necessary, it is quite right to borrow for the purpose of executing them. But then there are works which are possibly, but not certainly, remunerative. Such are roads, bridges, ferries, &c. Unless tolls were charged (which would be impolitic and perhaps render them nearly useless in many cases), these works can only be indirectly remunerative ; as by inducing immigration, 01 the settlement and improvement of new districts. Here much more caution is necessary; because, though the effect may eventually be produced, it is difficult to say how many years may elapse before it will be produced; t.nd during all these years the interest of the borrowed money must be paid. However, in our own case, we think the Council cannot be called imprudent for proposing to borrow money for making roads sufficient to open up any agricultural districts in Massacre or Toman Bay (which name for it should be at once adopted). For, as that is the centre of the gold-diggings, and the larger valleys there have many attractions to settlement, it seems a good policy to remove what would so greatly impede settlement as the want of roads. Our permanent population may be considerably increased thereby, and a great quantity of the gold that would otherwise be carried elsewhere be retained to be spent in this Province. The same may be said with respect to the money voted for the road connecting Wairau with its seaport. There are many other reasons in favour of the outlay on this object which we need not repeat now. And we are glad to see that Mr. Parker's motion to increase the sum originally proposed to £6,000 was carried, as the road may be expected to cost rather more than less than that sum. But it is just as well to be prepared for the possible contingency, that this expenditure, however judicious and necessary to the future advance of the Province, may not be reproductive or remunerative for some years. With respect to the Harbour lighthouse, the Motueka jetty, and one or two other items, we are in some doubt. They will not be remunerative in the sense in which we have been using the word, and we very much doubt if they are so absolutely necessary as to justify the imposition of a debt upon future settlers for their erection. At any rate the principle we have laid down above (that of securing payment of the principal and interest within the time the works will last) should be strictly adhered to with respect to them also ; and the yearly burden to be laid upon the revenue of future years should be sufficient to pay off both principal and interest. So that if all the £25,000 authorized were to be spent, it should be clearly understood, and even secured by the provisions of the Act authorizing the loans— that the yearly payments required must amount to a considerabe sum above the £2,500 of mere interest. There is one class of works for which it is abundantly clear, from all that has been said, that it is neither just nor politic that any money should ever be borrowed ; and that i3 — for mere repairs of roads. These are most undeniably mere annual expenses. The settlers next year, and the next twentieth year will still have to pay for their own repairs. It would be monstrous to make or expect them to pay for our repairs. We reap and exhaust each year all the benefit of such expenditure ; aud therefore each year should be compelled most strictly to bear the whole burden of such expenditure. We presume the Committee of Public Works of course intended the sums they recommend for road repairs to be wholly paid out of the uext year's actual revenue.

We have been requested to explain au expression in our article of Saturday last, from which it appears an incorrect inference might be drawn. In pointing out the difficulties in the way of introducing agricultural settlers into the Wairau, we instanced the absentee ownership of most of the agricultural land in that district. As this might appear to allude to that body^ t?j<? idea of wluch. efte term "absentee " first raises in the mind of ordinary readers, viz. the capitalists resident in England

who originally bought lands in the settlement, we wish it to be understood that such was not our intention. The "absentees" are merely absentees from the Wairau itself, who may be resident in Nelson or other parts of this Province. The English absentees have, we are informed, in most cases, parted some time since with their lands, to New Zealand purchasers or speculators. This, however, does not much interfere with our argument the important fact being that the land has been parted with by Government, and is now in the hands of private owners, who will of course exact its full market value from intending settlers, even when willing to sell; and in many cases will prefer retaining it in their own poss?ssion until it has become still more va'i able. If our remarks have tended to raise the old bugbear of English absenteeism, we trust this explanation will lay the ghost again ; cr at least cause the horror it may produce to be transferred to the right quarter.