A LETER FROM SIR R. STOUT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1957, 23 May 1889, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LETER FROM SIR R. STOUT.

THE CONSERVATIVE RECORD. (Fjrom Our Own Correspoitobnt.). , Wellington MayJ7 A Sir R. Stout has addressed a long letter^toths New Zealand Times, in reply to that jonrnal'i strictures on his remarks relative, to Govern* ment "parsimony." In his letter Sir Robert says: — ' !< J ( ' You state that when the late Government left office there was a deficit of £528,000. Now this is ridiculously untrue. The deficit uu-.to the 31st March 1887 was £92,293. We were not responsible for the deficit at the end of the Slat March 1888. According to our Budget we were prepared to meet the expected deficit by' economies and hew taxation. We were denied this opportunity, and those who refused to meet the wants of the colony by proper economies and taxation— we proposed both— are responsible. Ia October when the present Government took office, they knew the revenue for the years 1887*88 could not meet the, expenditure, and yet in their Budget, they made no sufficient provision for it. On the Ist November 1887, when the Colonial Treasurer delivered his Statement, he said, " I have already informed the the committee that it is estimated the expenditure of the consolidated fund during the year ending 31st March 1888, would' exceed the revenue by £389,305, if, , expenditure proceeded at the " old rate, and further taxation were toot imposed" (P. 14, BI 11, session 1887).' If 'we had remained in office would have done both, and not have had the large sum. added to the funded debt of the colony which the .policy of' the present Government necessitated. What econfr* mies the Government have made, and on whtt lines is the, new taxation imposed? : I need pot dwell on our taxation proposals. , They, wen pronounced as atrocious. The colony 1 saw "and felt in 1888 a taxation beyond what we proposed, and the economies were, neither, systematic ,pr just. All I care to show, however, is that our deficit was but £92,292 whilst the deficit of our • successors was £383,074., I. have omitted the, land fund from our deficit as it never w ( is usual to bring it under the ordinary revenue account; but if that be done the deficit' wefaid be £54,262. Now, I aak the most biassed party politician that ever read your piper, is it fair to charge us with ' a deficit '{nit took place at the end of March -31 j- 1888, when we ceased to be Ministers, in Ootober 1887, and when, if our policy of' 'economy .and fresh taxation had been carried out, there must have been no deficit ? The summary of our proposals can be learned from this passage in the Budget: — "The proposed expenditure being £4,071,804, and the anticipated reveride £4,156,184, a surplus o£ £84,800. is the resnlk. As regards the £90,300 deficiency of last yeaj, although I hope to be able to pay it off this yew out of the surplus, I do not like to undertake to do so. I propose asking that it stand over uutil after the end of uext session, , If, the year's transactions enable it to be sooner extinguished, as I hope may be the casej I shall be glad to pay it off '« (P. 15, B r 61, session, 188?). What, then, becomes of your audacious spate - ment that we are responsible for the deficit, of [ our successors ? I consider one of the greatest ! blots on the, present administration is that knowing there would be a large deficit if fresh taxation were not imposed, they did not propose new taxation in 1887. ' ' So much for your criticism on. the late admin* istration. And now a few words i about yon* personal criticism on myself. I am' very careless about your opinions about my views or fflj actions, and if you had not dealt with the action of the late administration I never would hav£ troubled you With any correspondence. "if® have wrongly assumed that in my letter to w Joyce I was criticising the acts of the present administration, I was referring to the Yonpjj New Zealand party. Nor did J say pne wor4 against economy— J objected to parsimony. jO" seem to see no distinction between the tffOEconomy consists in the proper and Mtyr spending of money. Parsimony is {;he with? holding of expenditure. If parsimony had beefl the policy of the colony in the past I doubt v it would ever have been anything but a sheep* walk. There would have, been no towns, no education system, no direct service, no w»* ways — in fact no enterprise.. ..Parsimony 'thinks the highest aim in life » » accumulate money. Economy believes tnw wisely spending money, looking , with o°F to the future, is abigher aim ,in life. . I favour economy ; to parsimony lam opposed j and 1 1** lievesofar as the idea of parsimony has taKen root amongßt us it has been injurious. Wfl m™ seriously injnred this colony by repeating w hated word •• depression," so that people f»». ■ distance have believed us bankrupt. We £*^ lost thousands of our population, we D*» e frightened hundreds from coming hither. Ifw gratjon has been stopped and a policy of pe*» mism preached, and this is the result of rn»w°* a god of parsimony. What the consemtiv.e*?j action has done I need not now state '«£*•' **? me just point out a few things :-(l) the honorarium has been reduced; (2) the n«?**s members has been reduced; (3) jta'MtoijgJ salaries have been curtaUed; JmJJS high schools withdrawn; (5) vfflage setgemeai scheme abandoned; (6) perpetual towjjjl destroyed; (7),Bm»U nu» fiobww destroy* i

rjuy tenure ot pastoral lease largely increased, d in certain runs made seoure for 21 years ; /Ql I vataftble land sold at lCs and 12s per acre irifchout settlement conditions ; (10) dummyism rampant without check or hindrance ; (11) upmDte made to weaken the State system of Zation; (12) last, but not least, £13,000,000 worth of property—our State railways— have teen handed over to three irresponsible foil servants. If these be not a good ronservative record, I do not know what h! ia, And all in two sessions, too. However, the time of reckoning will come, fast as it came to those who in 1877 supported the Public Works policy and would not listen to «ny safeguard, and then when their pockets fl/re touched cried out and denounced Sir Julius Vogd as if he alone were guilty. The very many journals that aided, supported, and H&moured for the Public Works policy in 1870 were those who denounced it in 1887-88. And 0 it will be with the new Conservative reaction. Five years a^ er this, if not sooner, when our Und is gone and little settlement is provided, there will be denunciation of that policy which Is in the ascendant now, and which the would-be denouncers are now supporting. — I am, &c., Robebt Stout.