THE STIRRING TIMES, WE LIVE IN— VOGEL'S FINANCE—MILITARY ROADSDUTY ON FLOUR.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 65, 14 August 1869, Page 3

THE STIRRING TIMES, WE LIVE IN— VOGEL'S FINANCE— MILITARY ROADSDUTY ON FLOUR.

To the Editoe op the ' Nelson Examinee.' Sin — These arc times when anyone having a particle of public spirit should make the best use of it. There is a woful want of it in the public at large. Not that everyone does not know the death-dealing or life-giving power of politics at the present time; and that, while we are struggling for a living, they have usurped a greater influence over our future than our individual exertions can command. But the struggle against hard times brings so much work to each man's door, that it is not surprising the public attention is diverted from our higher interests at a time when it should be more than ever centered upon them. It is this consideration which induces me to come out of my retreat in the back-country, and offer a few remarks upon one or two of the salient points of Mr. Vogel's Financial Scheme, which circumstances have dignified into being the question of the day. Mr. Fox, like the great and patriotic empiric that he is, has exhibited his ability in quackery by attacking his rivals in a torrent of vituperation, and his consistency, by offering no remedy of his own, except one or two pills, which he has enveloped in a phrase borrowed from his new materia medica. He has chosen a very dexterous apothecary in Mr. Vogel, however, who is able to palm off his new pharmacology in greater detail and with quite as much effrontery as was displayed in introducing it. But having analyzed one or two of the pills, I distrust the new practitioners. My honourable friend Vogel tells us some sterling truths, it is true (which we have reason to think would have been quite as well told by his predecessors, had they been permitted), dwelling in particular upon his precedent intention of bringing every item that passed through the Treasury to account within the year. But if he proceed upon the course he lias sketched out, he will find that the most significant item in the Treasury brought to account — considerably within the year — will be himself. His principle of allowing the repayment of the proposed cumulative loan for military roads to fall on the next generation of the North Island, was the first thing to startle me. At first sight, indeed, the idea of making those alone who shall use these roads pay for them, seems a glorious one ; as, though we are to make them after all to settle the war, yet, as is admitted, we may never be able to use them ; and it does seem cozy to issue bills on posterity for the expense of settling our present difficulties. But we must take care not to bequeath to that very interesting people (of whom, by-the-by, very little is known as to their numbers, character, or ability to pay), a legacy indicative rather of our belief in their filial affection, than of our parental regard. My honourable friend may perhaps quote, for my utter annihilation, that very cogent apothegm uttered by a philosophical statesman of the last century, Sir Boyle Roche, " Why should we bother ourselves about posterity ? What has posterity done for us ?" Yet still I will venture to suggest that we should not altogether exhibit ourselves to him in the character of foolish knaves, and short-sighted, cowardly egotists, if we can help it. Now, if I understand my friend Vogel's proposals (and if he did not speak to be understood, more shame for him), it is to borrow money on terms of from five to fifteen years, which is to remain at compound interest. I look upon the shorter term as the mere sugar-coated first pill, to whet the palate of the country for the slower and deadlier poisons which are to follow, and which pretend to operate a present cure. I say pretend, because I believe there is a great deal of humbug in this military road system in our case. Now I won't even hint at an inquiry as to whether trustees and other simple folks will be so trusting as to lend money which is to be repaid in the far future— when there will be no more Maori wars— as they would were they to be eternally pestered with their interest as it becomes dve — those regular payments which are the best guarantee that a country is able and willing to redeem its obligations. I only know that I would'nt. I will simply point out that money lying at eight per cent, compound interest in a little more than fifteen years will decently quadruple itself; that is, if we borrow a million now, in a quarter of a life-time we shall have to pay four millions for it. In that time we will certainly have reaped only a harvest of outbreaks from these military roads, while most of those who are to come after us will still be to come. Now, as borrowing in this way is criminal recklessness in an individual, we cannot call it the highest order of wisdom and public virtue in a nation. And why ? Because the greatest check that can exist upon this penchant for borrowing is the certainty of the immediate yearly addition it will make to our burdens in providing interest and sinking-fund- But let the principle once be recognized that we, the present

generation, may borrow for the benefit of the next, and can postpone Iho repayment us fur as it suits us, and I luy a guinea we make the opportunity a golden one. If this age may thus dip its hand into the sacred cornucopice of the future, will it be restrained, think you, by a sentimental regard for a generation it has never seen, three-fourths of whom will be neither kith nor kin to it? Its all my eye. The seutimonts will be, Why should we bother ourselves about posterity ? What has posterity done for us ? Concerning this enticing scheme one or two other points demand an explanation. What definite line is to be drawn between works carried out upon this far-sighted principle, and ordinary honest interestpaying works ? And who is to draw it ? The Ministry, the Superintendents of the .North, or who? Is the money all to go to peaceable parties of roadmakers, or partly and mostly to the military forces which must back them up ? There is nothing very new under the sun. One would fancy, after all, that this might bo called a military loan — a little altered in name, a little different in its object from the famous three million loan, but a thousand times worse in principle. Our spendthrift Premier is determined to hand down his name to posterity in a legacy of debt, if in no other way. He and my very much esteemed friend, Vogel, have come into office upon the professed policy of carrying on the war without borrowing ; but of courao they know the rashness of having baited a broken hook with false professions, and, to secure fish they have made to take it, they strive thus further to allure them, into committing an act of the most selfish folly. It is an insidious attempt upon the virtue of the country, and, as such, should be resisted. Well might they anticipate the future repudiation of such a terrible burden by the North, against which they attempt to provide by a plan as ridiculous as it is humiliating. I havo v word to say about my honourable friend's proposed duty on flour. Unlike you, sir, I must confess that I discard, or at least have not given in my adhesion to, any universal and unvarying croed, either of protection or free trade ; I think that the latter will admit of beneficial relaxation in young communities, in whose interests gi'eat preachers on political economy have not written. But let us ask, What principle has been followed in this country? Why, that of taxing nearly everything we cannot produce, as though it were not considered good that we should have it ; while the article of all others on securing a home market for which the farmer's great, honeßt heart is set, is admitted jfree/ Is this protection ? Is it free trade 1 I am persuaded it can deserve one name no better than the other. A system which taxes everything the producer needs, but cannot grow, and yet prevents the pale of what he can grow, is not to be defended on the principles of free trade. To be so defensible, no exception should be made. So far I am agreed with Mr. Vogel, and you differ from him, that flour should be taxed. But I ask, Why not at the same time reduce the duties on tea, sugar, &c, which we do not produce, and which are as universally used as bread, to the amount of £14,000? Or if this new tribute must be exacted, why by means of the Customs at nil ? The plain reason why is, that Messrs. Fox and Vogel want the £14,000, and well know that a Property or lucoine Tax, or an increase in Stamp-duties, would lose to them many of their supporters in the House ; but as a sop to farmers in its present shape, they are in hopes that it may prove a popular experiment. It is a trick worthy only of the shifty timeservers which they are. If they went boldly to work to revise the tariff and to overturn the whole system of taxation, so that the industrial classes might not havo to bear a share of the public burdens out of all proportion to their means, they would lose the support of those whose world begins, centres, and ends in self. They dare not, they have not the courage nor the patriotism to do it. Instead of adopting such a manly course, they are seeking perhaps to add another £1 on every family consuming imported flour in the country, the fduss already overburdened to a degree unparalleled, and this without a penny's relaxation in other legitimate directions. I am, &c., EXTEITPOEE.