N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 1888.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 860, 24 August 1888, Page 16

N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 1888.

Notwithstanding the very earnest — almost impassioned—appeal made by the Premier in his final speech delivered early yesterday morning on behalf of the Harhottrs Act Amendment Bill, he failed to convince his hearers that the Bill was not an objectionable and startling measure. In spite of all that he urged so ably to the contrary, the fact'remains that the Bill does practically' mean .that the Colony should take over the New Plymouth, Waitara, and Pateq harbours, with all their present debts, all their future liabilities, all their faults and failures. It is not surprising that the moment the Bill appeared it met a storm — : a perfect hurricane—of antagonism. At meet-, ings of the [Freetraders, of the Young New Zealand Party, and of tlio Qppor sition the feeling was almost unanimously adverse to the measure, and many staunch Government supporters were openly hostile. It had been decided that Mr Bruce, representing the Freetraders, should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, and Mr Ward, on behalf of the Young New Zealand party, agreed to second the amendment. The Premier introduced the Bill, and was backed up by the two Taranaki members, Messrs Samuel and Marchant. Almost all the other speeches were dead against it, and it was rejected by 44 to 16. The effect of the provision giving the Government power to raise the dues on the three harbours would naturally have been that if the Government raised the dues and the income conse-

quently fell off, the debenture-holders would go short, and if the Government lowered the dues then the revenue would still be insufficient and again the debenture-holders would have a claim against the Colony. The Premier in his second speech endeavoured to explain away what seems to us this obvious fact, but.ingeniously as he put the case, ho failed to convert a single listener. The thing is too palpable. If the Government vary the conditions under which the Harbour Boards have to work, they do virtually vary the security to the creditors. It is plausible in appearance. to say that by taking this power to increase the harbour dues the Government will simply be enabling themselves to place the Boards in a position to raise the revenue needed to pay their interest. Yes; if the revenue should come in all right under the new regime, that might bo so. But there is another side to the case. The revenue might, as we have said, bo seriously diminished through the increase in the dues, for importers might taka huff and say they would bring in their goods by rail as a protest against excessive landing charges. I‘:ow, if in this way the Boards’ income fell materially through the action of the Government, how, in ordinary fairness, could the contention be impugned that the Colony, having impaired the Boards’ revenue, was bound to take • the . whole affair into its own hands ? It seems to us that this demand on the part of various Harbour Boards—so long seen to be impending, and so justly dreaded —would thus be irresistibly strengthened. This Bill is only the pioneer of a formidable army of invasion. Once passed it would assuredly bo soon followed by other pleasures having the effect of shunting on the shoulders of the Colony the heavy burdens which have been created on account of the harbour works of Dunedin, Oaraaru, Timaru, and elsewhere. This cannot be too early prepared against or too resolutely resisted. As to the cry that the default of these various Harbour Boards will injure the credit of the Colony, tlsat may be dismissed with scant consideration. In the first place, it is groundless. The lenders to the Boards were and are perfectly well aware that they were lending only to those bodies and not to the Colony. Otherwise, why should they be paid so much higher interest? The form of the debentures explicitly acquaints them with the fact, and the rate at which they tendered for loans bearing such interest is distiuct proof that they were fully aware ot it. So they would suffer no wrong. And in the second place it would nob be, in our opinion, a public misfortuue if one consequence of the Boards’ default should be that this Colony could not float another loan in three years’ time. It is quite on the cards that there may be an unreasoning reaction of feeling against economy and non-borrowing, and that a “ plunging ” policy may onco more become popular. We hope . nor, but it may be so. In that case it will be well for the Colony to bo unable to indulge such unhallowed desires. From either point of view the argument of possible damage to our credit fails to commend itself.

But there was one feature specially objectionable in this objectionable Bill, which the House rejected by so overwhelming a majority. Clauee 4 embodied one of the most astounding proposals yet offered by any Ministry to Parlia,ment. It boldly and nakedly allowed the New Plymouth Harbour Boarcj to borrow money to. pay its interest. The Colony has been accused by its friends of paying its interest out of new loans, but this has always been denied. Here, however, the permission was set forth m black and white. That any Ministry could have proposed such a policy was enough to startle even this Colony, used as it is to lavish borrowing on every conceivable pretext. Hitherto it, at least, has not explicitly admitted . that it is borrowing to pay . interest. If the House had passed this Bill, unquestionably the Colony would have been saddled with the whole £250,000 of debt, and with all future liabilities, amounting to a large sum, and the taxpavers ot the whole Colony would have had to pay the deficiency in inlerost. As members of tho present Parliament were elected on a ‘ roar for retrenchment ” they would have cut but a poor figure when they went back to their constituents had they voted for a measure possessing the potentiality of adding so heavily to the public burdens and liabilities. They had no alternative but to reject

the Bill, and we are very glad that it was thrown but by so huge a majority as bo render the declaration of the House against the policy therein formulated so decisive as to leave no hope of a future reversal.