MR JOHN HUTCHESON’S ADDRESS

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3746, 22 May 1899, Page 3

MR JOHN HUTCHESON’S ADDRESS

FURTHER CRITICISM. Mr John Plimmer, well-known as tile “Father of Wellington,” writes, more in paternal sorrow than wrath, as follows: I am sorry to see the position the senior member for Wellington has taken up in his late speech. He was put into 1 arliament as a working man’s representative but in his address to his constituents he ’ has said some rather hitter things against the best friend of the working men as was ever Premier of .New Aealand. I am not so much biased in this matter as to think that Mr &eddon has no faults, for in my long life I have nevei met a perfect man yet; but I will say this of the Premier, that his policy has done more ,to raise the status of this colony, and especially that of the working man, than any Premier or Governor I have known in the fifty-eight years I have been in New Zealand. I am perhaps of a different opinion to some politicians as to how Party Government should be carried on by the supporters of eithei .the Government in power or the Opposition. I think a representative should reason with his chief in private on all matters which may not suit his ideas, and if they cannot agree, the representative should either resign or generously consider that the chief has the whole colony to legislate for, and give in to the greater responsibility, but that a party man should never air his eloquence at a public meeting against his chief, he it either the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition. I was very proud of Mr Hutcheson as a working man’s representative, and I am very sorry he has made such a mistake.

Very regretfully, “Fitz” says, I am constrained to agree with everything in yesterday’s issue on the above subject. He adds;—The funny part of this unf ’■ tunate defection has relation to 'hat curious arrangement said to exist as Mi Hutcheson’s conscience. in effect he declares;—“l solemnly bound myself to endeavour to prevent anyone from drowning Mr Seddon, but that is no reason why I myself should not cut his throat”; and he proceeds to cut his throat accordingly. This illustrates the way he reads his pledge, and keeps lit, according to conscience. . . .• . I fancy it was after the by-election in which Mr Hutcheson first failed to give support to his political friends that Mr Duthie ■(who had good grounds for gratitude _tc Mr Hutcheson) called upon our senioi member. There may be those who can recall the extraordinarily enthusiastic manner in which Mr Hutcheson spoke of Mr Duthie’s persiflage on that occasion. Mr Duthie’s patronage proved too much for the moral stamina of MrHutcheson—he has never been the same man since. . . But for an example of the reallj stupendous bias which the mind of . Mr Hutcheteon has acquired against hit l friends commend me to the following:’;— “You have got to take this man on. I know nothing of his fitness for the work —but he has a vote.” Really! What an extraordinarily exceptional, acquirement this having a vote must be! Jf the man was put on because he hadn’t a vote, then he might properly be re garded as conspicuously different from anybody else. Mr Hutcheson has gone cronk indeed.

But what “Fitz” desires to warn the working classes about particularly is, he says, the nonsensical cry about the Givi’ Service. He proceeds; Throughout these colonies there is a class—the cultured, wealthy, leisured class—who hold that appointments to the Civil Service should be at their option for their sons, and friends. Take the case of New South Wales, where they have a Civil Service Board—the members of that Board arc of the c ass I have referred to, and nc poor man’s sou has the ghost of a show in obtaining any appointment. Peace reigns, because the wealthy classes have full possession of what they claim as then rightful privilege. Prior to 1891 there was more favouritism, more so-called cor ruption, in appointments to the Civil Service in New Zealand than there has been since; but the class claiming privileges made the appointments and got them, and so nothing whs said. It was only when a really democratic Government came to power and appointments were made outside the magic circle that the row was started, and kept going with the regard usual to truth and honour. And here is a labour member and a democrat who wants to persuade the people to set up a Board that will carefully shut out their * children from employment. Men arc not gods. Every man has friends and has enemies. Mr Hutcheson will never find a Minister who will appoint the nominees of his enemies and leave his friends to go naked. He takes the power from the Minister and gives it to five other men who, being human, have each friends and enemies. Arc they incapable of working the oracie to serve their friends ? Are they completely removed from influence? Will they appoint the son of a humble cottager who has nothing but a school record to speak for him P Of course, they are not on the cadge for votes, the bogey that has been playing up in the brain of Mr Hutcheson. Well, there are a few' hundred thousand votes in New Zealand, and he is a wonderful funny Minister who thinks, as Mr Hutcheson thinks ho thinks, that ho can in any degree influence the result of an election through any appointments he may make in the Civil Service. Oh, Hutcheson. Hutcheson,, how grossly are you betraying your people!

“Neutral” criticises the speech as well as the speaker’s attitude thus : —“Apart fj-om party, or the merits or demerits of the Jones certificate affair, Mr Hutcheson’s speech has been a great disappointment and a hitter pill to those who honestly support principles and not men. There was not in it a single stroke of originality, statesmanship or constructive ability. The unemployed, difficulty perplexed him, and he had nothing to suggest as a remedy. He picked up the Civil Service Board parrot cry, but he had not the slightest notion of what its personnel should be composed, where its powers should begin or end. or what it should do. The reasons which he gave for not ear-mark-ing some source of revenue as a provision for old ago pensions were quite amusing. He told his audience (and right-

ly) that the workers were the chief contributors to the consolidated fund, and in the next breath he paradoxically assigned this as a reason for drawing the old age pensions from that fund. If the workers have been robbed through taxation, by what process or reason does he hope to improve their position by drawing their pension from a fund created by themselves ? It is true that it may be expedient at present to get the old age pensions from the Custom House, but it is really too bad that a Socialist and a working man s candidate should defend this as the correct source. The idea of throwing the old age pensions upon the community value of land, and authorising the Commissioner of Taxes to collect it in the annual land tax accounts, seems never to have occurred to him. The Opposition opposed the measure, not necessarily for the reasons assigned by Mr Hutcheson, but because it was an open secret on both sides of the House that the landowners would ultimately have to pay it out of their rents, or, in other words, out of those values created by the workers; it was chiefly for this reason that the Bill was supported by the real Liberals in the House. Mr Hutcheson’s theories for the amelioration of tne masses began in words, and they are ending in words. But the most humiliating cut of all was when he said that if “State activities” were increased things might improve; and when asked how these “activities” could be brought about, he told his interrogator that it would be necessary to increase the taxes. The idea of making people rich by taxation is not new; in fact, it is very old; but the heart sickens when it is given as a remedy by a Socialist and a working man’s representative. Hope can bo°too long deferred. Short of a few empty declarations, Mr Hutcheson’s speech, in all matters of vital importance, must have been pleasing to the Conservative party, and as soothing as the sound of soft flutes to the ears of Captain. Russell and Mr Dutliie. They agree with Mr Hutcheson that the working classes should pay the taxes, but they have not had the temerity to affirm that the old age pensions should be a charge upon the recipients, t is true that Mr Seddon has done nothing to adjust the incidence of taxation, and on tliis account those who know the importance of this subject are. beginning to despair and lose confidence in him”; but backed with such men as Mr Hutcheson, he is hound hand and foot, and he is to be pitied.