New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1875. THE POLITICAL POSITION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 220, 27 November 1875, Page 12

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1875. THE POLITICAL POSITION.

“ Coming events east their shadows be- “ fore.” AVe think we can perceive the dim outline of the questions at stake in the constitutional struggle which will be advanced a stage, and only a stage, at the general election. Mr. Macandrew has formulated the Otago opposition ; Sir George Grey will do the same for Auckland in a few days ; and Mr. Rolleston, through his friend, Mr. Tosswill, has done something of the same kind for Canterbury. In Nelson, Mr. Curtis, as was to be expected from his central stand-point, assumed an intermediate position between the two extremes, and his views will no doubt be supported by a majority of the Nelson constituencies. “ AVe “ want no new institutions, said Mr. “ Curtis ; we only require an ex- “ tension of existing ones in other words, he thinks that enlarged powers should be given to municipalities, road boards, and the like. And we agree with Mr. Curtis in thinking that this would be sufficient for the present at all events. The country has become accustomed to the local governing bodies created by provincial legislation ; let these remain untouched by all means, adding to their administrative powers when necessary. This would be far better than attempting to introduce an uniform system throughout the colony, without reference to local requirements or predilections. The principal objection to the Local Government Bill of last session lay in this one particular. Of course we do not mean to say that this ivas the only objection, but we believe that it was the strongest one that could have been urged. The Acts constituting highway and road boards had been altered and amended time after time by the several Provincial Councils as experience suggested, until they had become generally acceptable; it would have been futile, therefore, to expect that a new Local Government Act for the whole colony would have given general satisfaction from the start. Far from it. The mere abolition of Provincial Government is nothing ; but the constitution of local governing bodies is everything. Following Mr. Curtis, as he deserves to be followed, we find that he thinks it would be necessary to “ enlarge the pecu- “ niary resources” of the local governing bodies, as well as enlarging their powers. No objection can be taken to the principle enunciated by Mr. Curtis ; it is only when he comes to apply it that we differ from him. Money, however small in amount, is a good thing ; plenty of money is still better ; and if the Government could “ provide substantial endow- “ ments” for municipalities and road boards without taking it out of the people’s pockets, or diminishing the public patrimony by selling the waste lands, we should only be too glad to see their “ pecuniary resources enlarged.” But when it comes to be a question of new and increased taxation, the proposal assumes another and a totally difibrent aspect. It then becomes wrong in principle and mischievous in practice. It raises money from the people, ostensibly for revenue purposes, and spends it without their consent or control in the reduction of local rates, and the improvement of property in towns and rural districts in which very many of the tax-payers have no interest whatever. Thus a great wrong is done, under color of law, to one section of the public, while another section is encouraged in extravagance and unthrift, by depending upon the Govern-

ment for the means, i. c. , the money, to carry on. If Mr. Curtis’s proposal means anything, it means plunder under cover of law, and nothing else. It was cheered to the echo by the good people of Nelson, who saw subsidies ahead, and cared nothing whatever of the source whence the subsidies came.

And let us say here, in passing, that our argument is.as condemnatory, on principle, of the Government proposals to subsidise municipalities and road boards, as it is of Mr. Curtis’s proposal at Nelson. Our duty, however, is to state the plain truth, for unless the people are taught through the Press that Government agency is the most costly one that could be employed for raising money for local improvements, they will never learn it from politicians. The temptation to maintain the economic delusion that the Government can grant something to the people which it has not first taken from the people, besides retaining a large percentage of the amount raised in taxes as commission in the shape of salaries, is too great for politicians to resist, even were they aware of the fact ; but we do very many of them the justice of saying that they work blindly, in utter ignorance of the principles of political and economic science.

We have devoted some little consideration to the financial position of this country, and we are not prepared to follow Mr. Curtis, when lie said that “ additional taxation would “ soon be necessary, and that it must “ take the form of a land and property “ tax, and if that was not sufficient, an “ income-tax also.” If, however, Mr. Curtis’s policy of “enlarging the pecu- “ niary resources of municipalities and “ road boards” be adopted, (and hitherto it has had the sanction of General and Provincial Governments,) there can be no doubt that additional taxation will be necessary. If, on the other hand, a sound economic policy be adopted, then additional taxation will not be necessary, but on the contrary we conceive it possible, in a few years, by prudent administration, to remit some of the present taxes. This latter alternative, however, argues an amount of intelligent self-denial on the part of the governed and governing classes which we can scarcely expect from them. The former will cling to the financial delusion of Government subsidies ; the latter will encourage the delusion, and impose new taxes to provide the funds necessary to satisfy the demands of the people ; —and so the mischief will proceed until the country is brought face to face with a deficit, without the means of meeting it except by a wholesale, and possibly cruel and unfair system of retrenchment. AA r e desire to avert this calamity if possible; hence our comments on Mr. Curtis’s speech, which is all the more dangerous from the plausible way in which mischievous principles are placed before the public. It is scarcely within the scope of this article to address ourselves to the views of the Opposition. The tendency of their opinions we have previously explained. In due time we shall be able to piece the various parts together, and form a judgment upon the whole. Finance, however, lies at the root of all. Money and administration : these embody everything that can be said on the subject on either side. AVe have not yet either seen or heard anything approaching a statesmanlike exposition of the present position of the country, viewed from an economic stand-point, much less hav6 we either seen or heard a statesmanlike forecast of its possible or probable future. Speeches there have been in plenty, from the inspired utterances of the Dunedin banquet to the impertinent inanities of Tokomairiro, and the balancing feat at AVaikouaiti. But nothing deserving the name of a sound political exposition has yet been made. Mr. Stafford has to speak at Timaru. It is only fair to presume that he will rise to the occasion, and give the country something more than vague generalities. Sir George Grey is so wrapped up in schemes for “ the liappi- “ ness of mankind ” that he has no time left to face the hard and dry facts of the present. Mr. Macandrew, on the other hand, is so engrossed with the present that he refuses to look beyond his nose into the future ; and Mr. Rolleston, with a tact and discernment which do him infinite credit, puts forward a political fence to test the Canterbury electorate. If Mr. Tosswill’s political programme goes down at Coleridge, Mr. Rolleston will have something definite to go upon ; —not that we think he is at heart in favor of insular separation. However, should public opinion declare either for two or four provinces, or for the Government policy of abolition, no man in Mr. Rolleston’s position would be mad enough to go against the popular current. It is a safe position to take up, and one eminently characteristic of the Superintendent of Canterbury. Mr. Fitzherbert has not spoken to his constituents or the province ; and we think it is unreasonable to expect him to do so until the writs of election have been issued, or the Government by one of its members, has placed its intentions for the

future clearly before the country. Wo are not of those who think precipitancy any proof of political wisdom. Sir George Grey, as leader of the Opposition, should declare its policy : one or other Minister should also make the Ministerial policy clear. But the Superintendent of Wellington is neither leader of the Opposition nor a Minister of the Crown ; and his position, as Superintendent of Wellington, while that office exists, so clearly points to the maintenance of a political equilibrium, that neither friends nor fees should expect him to take a hasty step which might kick the beam to the injury of this community. We say this from a consideration of political signs all round. We may be wrong : if so, on being convinced of the fact, we shall admit our error. But until this has been clearly demonstrated, we shall hold the opinion that it is not the duty of the Superintendent of Wellington, or of any of the representatives of the province, to disclose their views at present.