MR STOUT ON NATIONAL ASSURANCE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 6863, 20 April 1883, Page 2

MR STOUT ON NATIONAL ASSURANCE.

Me Stout is one of the few members of the Liberal party whom it is worth while for intelligent and fairly read people to listen to. He is in the habit of thinking for himself, and if his public addresses contain a good deal of mullock, there are also, as a rule, grains of gold dropped into them. His recent speech at .Dunedin on n tional insurance, in reply to Major Atkinson, is a striking illustration of both the excellences and defects of his public deliverances. He pointed out some genuine objections to this now much discussed proposal, though not of sufficient weight to do away with its advantages on the whole. His first objection that “ the scheme was one of a special tax which Mould fall heaviest on the working-class” was arrant rubbish, and Mr Stout must have known that it was. So far from its being contemplated to levy a smaller contribution on the rich than on the poorer classes, the contrary is the case. No hint has ever been thrown out by Major Atkinson as to making the £6 or £7 per annum to be contributed per bead by the laboring classes at certain ages less than that which the rich must also pay at the same time of life. Practically, the poor will be rather better off than their aristocratic fellow-countrymen, because the latter will not be so likely to claim sick pay, or support under destitution. If Mr Stout wishes that the laboring man should pay a less amount of premium on his national insurance policy than other people, to the extent of the difference he is unjustly pauperising the laboring man. What laboring man in bis senses expects to pay less duty at the Customhouse on the beer and tobacco he consumes than the most “ bloated ” aristocrat in the colony on his ? Or, to take an illustration that comes still nearer at hand, what “ working-man ” —we should like to know, by the way, what other class there is iu this colony except that of workingmen? —ever asks to be made an Oddfellow or a Forester, andeujoy the benefits of so doing at a lower rate than some other member whom he knows to have a little more money than himself ? The objection on the score of alleged unequal contribution is mere claptrap. Mr Stout’s second objection has more appearance of force in it. It is quite true that the aggregate amount of con-

tributions to this insurance fund would be very large, and in the hands of an unprincipled Colonial Treasurer would bo in danger of being tampered with. But, so far as we have heard at present, there has been no hint of this being likely in the case of Major Atkinson, and if the people at any future’ time are foolish enough to allow unprincipled public men to have charge of the public revenue, they must expect to suffer for it, and will deserve to do so. Under any circumstances the Colonial Treasurer will have to dispense three or four millions per annum, and an additional million in his hands will not be much of an additional temptation. The third objection raised by Mr Stout, “ that compelling a weekly payment from young people of 1G and 18, would have the tendency of sending them earlier to work and thus depriving them of a higher education,” is, we believe, a valid one, as far as it goes. Very likely that would be the tendency. But then, though we acknowledge the advantages of a higher education and the continuance of school studies; there is one other thing that is more important still than this, and that is a sound, practical education, such as fits for the intercourse of the world in the everyday life of ordinary manhood in the colony. And with reference to that, what better lesson could be early learnt than that of economy and provision for the future? Most heartily do we endorse Mr Stout’s fourth principle, “ That the State should interfere less and less with the individual." It is a golden rule, and lies at the bottom of all social and political freedom. Even Major Atkinson does not recognise it as fully as we should like. But the worst of all sinners against it are Mr Stout’s special allies— Liberals, with protectionist proclivities, for instance —who want the State to be eternally interfering with individual freedom of trade, and land reformers who attempt to burst up all estates a little larger than their own. It is quite true also, as Mr Stout contends, that there is I; no royal road to the prevention of poverty,” but there is and must be a way to deal with absolute pauperism, which is another and a different matter. Inequalities of fortune or comparative poverty there must be, and perhaps there must be more of it as every country becomes more civilised. But absolute poverty there need not be, and indeed; must not be, unless we allow the poorest of all to perish like dogs. And as that must he prevented somehow, either by our existing plan of supporting hospitals and benevolent institutions, or, secondly,by a Poor Law of the English type, or bv some such scheme as Major Atkinson’s, or by some fourth alternative, it- is incumbent on Mr Stout to tell us what the fourth alternative is, or to be silent on the subject. It is true, indeed, that he mentions that “ the only way to lessen pauperism is to gradually educate mankind to lire better, to do away with the causes of poverty, and to

socially and morally improve themselves.” These principles are sound enough in themselves, and will meet with _ general approval. But the question is how to work them out in detail. And on that subject Mr Sxotrx leaves us in utter darkness.