The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1905. SOME INTERESTING FACTS.

Opunake Times, Volume XXII, Issue 814, 28 November 1905, Page 2

The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1905. SOME INTERESTING FACTS.

Cubing fcbe years the present Government has been in office, the members of it have never lost an opportunity to tell the people of the colony about the wretched days that existed when the Conservative Party was in power. This has gone on to such an extent that a large number of people have come to the conclusion that it was due to the policy of the Conservative Party that wages were low and soup kitchens had to be established. (Even in these days of flaunted prosperity a soup-kitchen was being run in Wellington last winter.) The supporters of the party of those days have always pointed out that the condition of affairs in New Zealand necessitated soup kitchens, and that the manner in whieh the Government controlled the administration was rather to their credit than otherwise. A number of settlers in those days of adversity have to thank the supporters of the party they are so ready to condemn for assisting them through the struggle, which proved better than words that they were liberal in actions, and with their own funds. Mr Hislop, who is an Independent candidate for Wellington, in an address the other evening, threw some light on to the subject which should make people give credit to those who rose to the occasion at a time which demanded more than the average courage of present-day politicians. The following is taken from the New Zealand Times“ Up to 1879, they heard remarks such as were beard now, that trade was good and the colony’s financial position was superexcellent. But in that year of disaster the City of Glasgow Bank crash came, and the wages of carpenters, for instance, sank from 12s 6d per day to 6s. But by degrees the colony recovered until 1883, when there was another serious depression, and wheat, which had been 52s per quarter, fell to 29a. Things improved in 1886 when the Stout-Vogel Administration was in power, but in the following year they were defeated, and on going to the country came back in a great majority. Major Atkinson’s Government, of which he (Mr Hislop) was a member, then came into power. They found that the deficiency was not £147,000, as had been stated, but no less than £520,000. It required persons of some nerve and determination and knowledge of public affairs to bring out of these chaotic conditions a proper and stable state of affairs. (A Voice : And you brought down the working man’s wages.) Mr Hislop said he would tell them about that, and if the matter was looked into it would not disclose anything to that Government’s discredit. Their London agents informed them that it was no use going on the market to borrow money unless they bound themselves not to go upon the market again for three years. On that condition only it would be possible for them to raise one million. The expenditure during the previous three years had been £700,000 per annum, and consequently the Atkinson Government had very little to spend. He had just been asked about the workmen’s wages. As a matter of fact, they had inherited from their predecessors a most unfortunate condition of affairs. Relief works, for which he didn’t blame the previous administration, were in existence. They found they had to reduce their expenditure in order to equalise it with their income, and they proceeded 1 to do so by cutting down salaries and

services, which they very much regretted having to do, and would not have done had any other course been open to them. By this means they made a saving of some £854,000 per annum. They commenced with the Governor, and reduced his salary by £2OOO or £2soo—he didn’t remember which. They reduced the Premier’s salary from £ISOO to £IOOO, and the salaries of the Ministers from £1250 to £BOO, which, he thought they would agree, was as small § sum as they could carry on with. The year following they nearly equalised matters, and the next year they had a small surplus. In 1890 they had a surplus of £310,000. He would ask if these were not financial operations of which any person might well be proud. They did not reduce one single salary of £2OO or under—(hear, bear)—nor did they reduce a single workman’s wages. But there was one unfortunate matter which he would frankly mention, and that was the continuance of the system of relief works. But, supposing it was a fact that the Government fixed the rate of wages on their works too low, he found, on looking up the records, that they could not do any better at the time; but before the Government left office the normal rate of wages had been restored. The “ soupkitchen " was not introduced by them. That was an outcome of the maritime strike, which he (Mr Hislop) had striven to settle by introducing a land settlement scheme, which had been commended even by the strike leaders. The soup-kitchens existed for three years into the term of office of the present Government.