Daily Circulation, 1660. The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1896.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 6506, 16 March 1896, Page 2

Daily Circulation, 1660. The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1896.

In his reference to the Government's cheap money scheme, Captain Russell repeated the well-worn assertion that money had not been cheapened through the institution of that scheme, and that other colonies had, since the negotiation of the million and a half loau, borrowed money more cheaply than Sew Zealand had. We will not 30 into the intricacies of this question, which Captain Russuli either does not understand or designedly trifles with, but will merely say that it has been generally recognised that Mr Ward led the way to any advantages which have been reaped by other colonies since his notable stroke in finance. Those who are not blinded by prejudice will generously recoguise that the Government are entitled to the thanks of the colonies for what they have done. Their initiation of the scheme of State Joans to farmers on substantial security, and at the smallest possible rate of interest consistent with safety, is being universally followed, and if it be true that money can be lent by private individuals at as cheap a rate as that, charged by the Government, then it is evident that there is still room for a reduction of the Government's charges by one or two per cent. Such schemes are not to be successfully V nilt up in a day, but must be adjusted in accordance with changing circumstances. Not only so, but the machinery for working them requires careful and constant supervision and regulation. The reason for Captain Russell's bitterness is not far to seek : The Government's cheap money scheme has been hated and (.enounced by capitalists because it is a direct ettack on the citadel of capitalism. It was, however, demanded by the exigencies of the hour, and although the administration of it has been most unsatisfactory, that is not the fault of the principle, but of the officials to whom the fed ministration was foolishly entrusted. Those officials seem to think it to be their duty to refuse rather than to grant applications for loans. They seem to have made up their minds that it is their duty to bring disaster and contempt upon a scheme which interferes with their preconceived, fusty, notions of what things ought to be. Mr Waiburton and persons over whom he has control ought never to have had positions on the lending board. They have been the occasion of the absolute failure of the Act, and recoutse must be had to local boards of reliable men who would treat all applications in accordance with their merits, and who would be the only intermediaries between the applicants and the Government. This, we believe, is the reform which will be proposed to Parliament duriug next session, and which, we hope will be passed into law. In the meantine, those who are nnxious to borrow from the Government, but have been thwarted by the Board, must wait as patiently as possible for their turn to come, and should not blame the Government for failure which is consequent on the muti lation of the Government's original proposals by the enemies of progress.