The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1911.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10778, 29 May 1911, Page 3

The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1911.

Mr Massey told his audience the other night at the Opera Mr Massey on House that "the Finance. publ.'c debt of the

Dominion was now about £80,000,000 that during, the last 20 years the debt had been increased by £40,000,000, and during the last live years by approximately £20,000,000." This bald statement probatory sent a shudder of despair throughout the ranks of those who did not know enough to treat as fables the wild allegations of the Opposition leader. The position was authoritatively explained in the Budget of last year, and if Mr Massey has intentionally ignored the truth, or has forgotten it, he is not fit to be even the leader of the Opposition, much less to attain to the high and responsible office he has coveted throughout so many long and weary years. In explaining the position of the Dominion loan last session the Prime Minister, who is not a rash free lance but the trusted chief director of the affairs of this country, said: "In considering our public indebtedness it must be borne in mind that a very large proportion of it is directly interest-bearing, and, further, many millions of it have assets of value largely in excess of the amount ■of capital borrowed in respect of them. If we deduct the amounts so represented by assets, such as railways, native lands purchased with borrowed moneys, moneys advanced to local bodies secured on rates, the total amount will not be more than, say, £25,000,000. Included in this is the sum borrowed to quench, by war and sugar and blankets and cajolery, Native opposition to the alienation of their lands, which amounts to several millions and for the borrowing of none of which is the Liberal . part.MO-esponsible. Now, if the money which has gone to swell the Dominion s indebtedness to the British moneylender had not been borrowed by the State, to lend to settlers and local ( bodies, but had been borrowed direct by the settlers and local bodies themselves, as Mr Massey says should have been done, would that have improved the situation? The money would have cost i 50 per cent, more and the burdensome obligation would have been borne just as much by the whole country. Let those who doubt—if there be any so blinded by prejudice or ignorance —asU those who borrowed in the only way which is considered orthodox by the Torv party under Mr Massey, to purchase large areas of land, but whose enterprise was disastrous —let them ask these unfortunates- and the mortgagors who pledged their farms for help from the same source, what was the cause of their financial ruin, and they will say that it was the high rates of interest, which could net be borne, with bad seasons, low prices, and. the worlds competition to contend against ANhat more is required to condemn Mr Massev's wild statements as to the public debt? Would the land occupiers or this, or anv, district be prepared to vote that the Government—who are their agents—should cease to borrow to lend to them and leave them at the mercy of the money-lender, who would not of course, accommodate them unless adequately covered by high interest for- all risks? Would the local bodies acree that the Government should cease to be their financial intermediary, with the same result—about from 1-1 to J per cent, premium? Those who reahse that politics is a means of promoting the weal or woe of the people mil agree with us that ; Mr Massey's deliverances on this point were valueless. It will avail us nothing to be led away by statements which are not male with an. enlightening the people, but of deluding them into Sissatiif action with- their, lot for the purposes of gaming personal advantage. ___^^^^