THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1905. THE DUNEDIN SOUTH CONTEST.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13449, 24 November 1905, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1905. THE DUNEDIN SOUTH CONTEST.

Nothing is more curious in the speeches in which Mr Arnold is recommending himself for the support of the electors of Bunedin South [■lia-ii his declaration that lie is a reliable prophet. Six years ago, he says, lie affirmed that the colony was entering upon ijs era of prosperity, and lie contends that this prediction has ]oee;i borii.e oi}t by results, and that the ppinions of other candidates, who considered that the highwater mark of prosperity in the colony had already been, reached at that time, have been falsified. If it affords Mr Arnold any satisfaction to think that lie really wears, the mantle of .a prophet, no one will

grudge liijii the pleasure lie derives from the belief; but it is impossible to admit the ■ valjdity of hjs claim to have achieved any large measure pf success in the predictions he lias permitted hijnself to make. The principal tests lie has applied prove, indeed, on examination to be destructive of the title lie asserts for himself. He takes, in the first place, the tr?,de of the colony, and ( ignoring the figures for 1899, where lie says the era of prosperity was commencing, lie compares the returns for 1893 with those for last year. What, however, do these figures show ? In 1893 the balance of exports over imports was £2,073,849, and as the interest

upon the public debt then constituted a charge of £1,779,5G4 on the Consolidated Fund, the colony was paying interest, as it should, out of its exports. So also in 1899: while the interest charges then totalled £1,734,400 (the figures having been affected and an apparent reduction brought about since 1893 by an alteration in the system of dealing with one of the old loans) the excess of exports over imports was £3,198,702. But last year, when the value of the colony's exports exceeded that of its imports by .£1,456,654, the interest amounted to £1,928,784, and this latter total, it must be borne in mind, is exclusive of the interest on loans for such objects as the purchase of estates for settlement purposes and the provision -..of cheap money for farmers, and it is also exclusive of the interest on the foreign indebtedness of local bodies and private individuals, the aggregate charge exceeding three millions annually. Now, if there is not a balance of exports over imports sufficient to meet this charge, the deficiency must be made up in some way that represents a drain upon the country. Judged by this test, Mr Arnold's claim to be regarded as a prophet must be held to be unsubstantial. Nor is he helped by another test •which he suggests. "The position of the workers," he says, " can 'r.e gauged from the Post Office Savings Bank returns." The appositei:o«K of the reference is as unqnestiqnablo as is the proof these returns afford of the thrift of a very considerable section of the public. But the conelusion to which the figures point is certainly not that the ability of the working people to save, money n growing. In 1900 and 1901 there was a gratifying increase in the excess of deposits over withdrawals; but since 1901, until last year, the movement was in the contrary direction. In 1901 the deposits exceeded withdrawals by £381,263 ; in 1902 the balance in favour of deposits dropped to £360,848; in 11903 it fell still further to £317,765 ; and last year 'it shrank to £171,760, although the number of individual depositors was increased during the year by 1f),489, while, notwithstanding that the total to the credit of all the accounts was swelled by. the addition of interest to the extent of £200,930, the average amount to the credit ol each account at the end of 1904 was several shillings less than it was at the close of the preceding years. Those proofs, upon which. Mr .Arnold relics in confirmation of his claim to have been specially successful si xyears ago in forecasting the future, scarcely justify the electors in accepting him at his own estimation of himself as a prophet. There have, doubtless, been various causes in operation to produce a shrinkage in the past four years in the excess of deposits over withdrawals in the Post Office Savings Bank. The working classes may, for example, have found better investments for their savings, for the Government was distinctly tardy in raising the rate of interest payable on deposits to the level of the rate obtainable elsewhere; and the returns for this year, so far as it has gone, show that the movement towards the canalisation of withdrawals with deposits has been checked. But the figures we have quoted illustrate the danger of handling figures in the superficial and careless way in which Mr Arnold treats them. Another instance of the unreliability of the statements made by MiArnold when he rashly treads the thorny paths of finance is furnished by his reference to Mr Scddon's 'record surplus." The truth of the allegation that the surplus is largely made up out of the proceeds of the sale of Grown lands will, he tells the electors, at once be understood when he informs them that the total amount received for the sale of Crown lands last year whs £0500. Apparently the quality of a crime is determined, in his opinion, by its magnitude, and dishonesty is only inexcusable when it is practised on a large scale. As a matter of fact, however, Mr Arnold is quite mistaken in his figures: the amount received last year for tlip sale of Crown lands was, <-.s the Financial Statement shov/s, not a paltry £6500, but was actually £49,526; and during its term of office the Ministry has used considerably ovpr a million sterling, derived from this source, towards the production of its surpluses. Mr -Arnold occupies firmer ground—but still exhibits irresolution—-when, he turns his attention from finance to a consideration of the weakness of the Government. The present Administration is, lie very truly asserts, "not all that it should be:"—in fact, two or three members 'of the Ministry are contemptuously dcsenbed by him as "weeds," from which allusion wo may gather that Mr Arnold ventilates a personal grievance when he complains that it is "not doing justice to the party that any one member of that party should be callejl upon, to feel that he was supporting an ' individual Minister or Ministers inferior jnentally and in every way to himself." Mr Arnold evidently feels strongly on the subject, for although |)e has opposed the Elective Executive Bill' in the past-, he now expresses his readiness to support that measure, as it offers,' lie Relieves, the only way to "pijrjfy" (he Administration. Pending the passage of this Bill, howqyer, lie holds hiiTjself at liberty to take whatever steps he thinks wisest to cfiinpei the present Ministry to rp: construct and put some of the strongest men in the party in the

Cqjjiiiet. Bijt hg wuld stop slj.ort at the constitutional method,'available t'. Ministerial malcontents under the existing system, o} effecting a pliange: it' is, lie sagely declares, '' not the best way to do business of this sort." His own record of the past does not fill us with hope that, in the absence of an Elective Executive Act, Mr Arnold can suggest any more effective plan of getting rid of inefficient Ministers th.iu that* of displacing the entire Government. His method of complaining of the existence of "weeds" ir the Administration and of pp.tiently voting in every crucial division with the Government, which is the same now (excepting for the change in the leadership of the Upper House) as it was five years ago does not strike us as being particularly likely to produce satisfactory results. Moreover, we are really apprehensive concerning Mr Arnold's position in the new Parliament, if he should be returned, and if the Government should be reconstructed. Supposing Mr M'Nab and Mr Baume are fortunate enough to retain their scats and to be included in the Cabinet in place of two of the " weeds," what will be Mr Arnold's attitude towards the Government? He assures the electors that he stands firmly for the leasehold and that he uncompromisingly opposes the sale of another acre of Crown lands. But Mr M'Nab and Mr Baume both favour Hie freehold option, and IMr Field, another supporter of the Government, has cheered his constituents with the intelligence that the battle for the freehold has been won. Are we to be presented with the spectacle in the next Parliament of a freehold Government kept in office by the votes of leaseholders like Mr Arnold. Mr Millar, and others of their way n thinking.