THURSDAY, AUGUST 2,

Otago Witness, Issue 2111, 9 August 1894, Page 17

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2,

In the House of Representatives this after noon Sir Robert Stout made a personal explanation withdrawing the statement ho had made on the previous evening to the effect that Ministers had consulted with the members of the Railway Servants' Union as to the appointment of Railway Commissioners. The debate on the Financial Statement was then resumed and continued until the House adjourned at midnight. Of the Otago members, Messrs A. Morrison and J. A. Millar approved of the Budget, while Mr James Allen condemned it.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.

Sir R. STOUT rose to make a personal explanation. He said since the House roae last night he had seen the Minister for Education, who informed him that no railway man had spoken to him as to the dismissal of certain railway officers, and he therefore accepted that assurance from the hon. gentleman. He might say that the Hon. Mr Reeves had not asked him to make this explanation.

The Hon. W. P. REEVES said he, of course, accepted this explanation in the spirit in which it was made. He wished to state that he had met a number of railway unionists in Christchurch, and the meeting was conducted like other public meetings. There was nob a full muster of the uuion, but about 102 men were present. He had there stated that he waa against the commissioners, and he had expressed the opinion that the commissioners, or a majority of them, would go. As a matter of fact, his own feeling was that if any of the old commissioners were retained it should be Mr Hannay, but the Cabinet had decided otherwise. There was uo suggestion from the railway men as to tho dismissal of railway officers.

The Hon. R. J. BEDDON also explained that he had not attended any meetings of railway men, nor had he discussed the question of the appointment of railway commissioners with those men. There had been no prearrangement of any kind with the railway men as to the appointment of commissioners.

Sir R. STOUT said he also accepted the Premier's assurance in the matter.

THE DEBATE RESUMED.

Mr E. M. SMITH (New Plymouth) resumed the debate on the Financial Statement. He considered the Budget the best ever delivered in New Zealand, and warmly eulogised the Government for their action over the Bank of New Zealand. He considered that the bank was approaching a State bank now, and he hoped it would shortly become a State bank in ceality, because they could then fiuanco for themselves. The proposal of the Government to borrow a million and a-half to assist the small farmers of the colony was an excellent one, which he thought should have been taken in hand years ago. If the Government could propound a scheme which would give cheap money to industrious settlers who had to work from daylight to dark, they should be commended for such a wise and sound policy, and that was the reason why he should give that portion of the Budget his most hearty support. Referring to the question of land settlement, he considered the present Minister for Lands deserved all possible credit for his administration ; and if that Minister only got power from the House to purchase land for settlement he (Mr Smith) felt sure the Minister would exercise that power judiciously, as he had always done ever since he bad been in office. He (Mr Smith) gave strong approval to the proposal to establish colonial consols ; in fact, the more he studied the Budget of the Colonial Treasurer the more he loved it. He knew the Treasurer could not do everything in one session, but he asked Mr Ward why he had not effected a consolidation of our local loans. If he only faced that question the House would strongly support him. He also failed to see why the Government should not bring in an amended Hospitals and Charitable Aid Bill which was urgently asked for by the whole country, and he thought the Government would be forced into bringing in a bill of this kind before another session expired.

Mr BUTTON congratulated the Treasurer for bringing down a bold policy — a policy so bold that he might say the hon. member had rushed in where angels feared to tread. Mr Ward had presented the Budget with the skill of an artist, and asked them to look at a picture of a rosy character. Borrowing all round, however, seemed to be the groundwork of this picture. He wished he could believe that the colouring of this picture was not ephemeral. But as he gazed at the picture the beautiful spots disappeared, and nothing practical was left at all. He should only refer to a few of the proposals, because their number was so large he could not deal with all. As to the borrowing proposals of the Budget, they would involve a violation of the electioneering pledges made at the last election. This was imposed on him most strongly during the late election, and he could not possibly support those borrowing proposals without violating the pledges he made to his constituents. They were told, of course, that this was not borrowing. But that was simply begging the question, and his opinion was that it most certainly was borrowing. He held that when the people of tbe colony had so clearly pronounced againsS borrowing they were entitled to be heard before borrowing propocals were given effect to. He did not understand Mr Ward when he said only £250,000 was proposed to be borrowed, when, by the Statement itself at least ' £750,000 was to he borrowed, to say nothing of the money to be raised for land purchases or for giving cheap money to farmers. They were all agreed that the Land for Settlements Bill was good in principle, but he held that a great difficulty would be found in administering the act, and persons might from time to time bring irresistible influence to bear on the board to either purchase land or to distribute it amongst friends of the Government. He held that if the lease in perpetuity were agreed to there should be a revaluation of rents from time to time, which he thought only fair and reasonable. He asked the Treasurer whether he considered it wiso to compel foreign companies to deposit large sums by way of investing in New Zealand securities, and he wished to know whether that would not lead to retaliation on the part of other countries. His opinion was that it would probably result in about £480,000 being transferred to the other colonies from New Zealand. He opposed tho cheap mou^y scheme, and asked how it would affect institutions like the Goverament Insurance department. They would havo that department competing with the new department to be opened up by the cheap mon'-y scheme. UnleHS the Government Insurance department reduced irs rate of interest the

result would be that, thj prufi's (.o l-.o_iliurti-rf amongst policyholders wmid be cjts'Kr.ihly reduced, and that would act very prrjudicially. He asked also why those who were settling on the land should alone be entitled to this cheap money. As had already been pointed out, there were numerous factories and other establishments which could be greatly benefited by this scheme being extended to them He was aware it would be easier to give land as security, but he failed to see why oue class of the community should be singled out for assistance in this way when the whole colony had to bear the burden. If they were to increase indefinitely the amount of loan money to be borrowed in this way there was no doubt whatever a time of difficulty would arise for the colony, and they might anticipate in future a very large number of properties falling into the hands of the Government which would not be worth half the money that had been advanced on them. In such a case as that pressure would be brought to bear on the House to relieve those people from their liabilities, and so the general debt of the colony would be increased. The Government would therefore be involved in the meshes of inextricable confusion.

Mr M'GOWAN did not think those members who regarded the Government policy as borrowing were fair in their estimate of the Government proposals. He admitted that the Government were becoming security for this money, but they did not propose to spend the money on public works, and as they were obtaining security in return for the advances they might make, it could scarcely be called borrowing in the usual sense. As to the proposals for land settlement, he thought the Government were entitled to encouragement from both sides of the House for bringing in a bill to deal with this important matter. He did not agree with the question of local government being postponed, and he thought it was time the number of those bodies should be reduced, and so reduce their cost. It was also a matter for regret that more encouragement was not to be given to the mining industry. He agreed with the proposal to give assistance to fruitgrowers, and that was another reason why he thought the railways should be in the hands of the Government. He was very doubtful about the success of the financial-aid-to-settlers' scheme, because the tendency was to encourage the worst class of men in making those advances. It might in some cases be the best class of settlers who acquired the assistance, but he did not think this would be the case. Many of the best settlers in the colony started without assistance and succeeded solely by their own exertions. They were the kind of settlers they wanted, and if they had been bolstered up would probably not have done so well. That being his opinion of this scheme he held that very great care would have to be exercised in lending this money to a proper class of settlers. He approved of the consols scheme, and thought it would tend to make the colony rich and prosperous. He resented Sir R. Stout referring to Government supporters as dumb dogs, and said it looked as if that gentleman wished the Liberal party to follow him instead of the present Government. He considered that the Budget was a cautious policy, and not one of blundering as stated by the senior member for Wellington

Mr CROWTHER considered the Premier of the colony was too hard worked, and said the portfolios of Public Works, Native Minister, and Defence were too much for one man. As far as he could see, the Budget had very good features in it — especially the proposal to deal more efficiently with Native lands. The cheap money proposals would, in his opinion, involve a great responsibility. He agreed with the last speaker that it was just as important to encourage our local industries as to lend money to farmers. This scheme should not be confined to farmers only, but should be extended to other branches of business. He had heard there was a general desire to bring this debate to an early close. If that was so he should be willing to allow older members to speak on the Budget and give way himself.

Mr M'LACHLAN said the Budget proposals would give relief to people who had never been legislated for before, and the fact that farmers would now be able to get a reduction of 2 to 3 per cent, in mortgage rates would be a very considerable relief to them. He should not attempt to refer to all the speeches of members who preceded him ; but he noticed that Mr Mitcheisoi), who had held some important positions in the colony, had disputed the surplus and the accuracy of the public accounts. Sir R. Stout had also taken a similar line, but the figures of those two hon. gentlemen contained a material difference. As to the financial condition of the colony, he (Mr M'Lachlan) held it was impossible for anyone not trained in the Treasury to understand the accounts of the colony. He resented as ungenerous Sir R. Stout's remark that there was no one in the Ministry but Mr Ward who understood finance. With respect to the cheap money proposals of the Government, he referred to the state of affairs in Canterbury for the last 30 years, and said it -would be much better to be under the heel of foreign bondholders «t 3£ per cent, than under the heel of mortgagees at 12£. He differed from many other members as to the railway management, and believed that the present system worked well, beside 3 relieving the Government from a great deal of trouble. His opinion was, however, that the Government should have direct representation on the Board of Railway Commissioners. H i ) i-pprcved of the boards to he pet up for land purchases, and thought the member ror a district was the most suitable man to be on the board. He said he was glad to see that the Government intended to give every encouragement to the dairy industry of the colony, as tbat industry was calculated to confer immense benefit on the country. He also heartily approved of the Government proposals with respect to Native land As long as members of the Government did not deceive him he should continue to support them, but if he found them deceive him oce iota he should know them no mon>

Mr MONTGOMERY ssid this debate pos » ssed one p> culiarity in that the most h stile speech made against the Budget was not delivered by an Opposition membc-r but by a member of the Li^ral parky. Sir R Stout would not give the Government credit for anything, and he represented the Budget in the blackest terms. Even Mr Mitcbelson admitted there was pome surplus, but Sir R. Stout-, would not do tha f , and sta<r j d thi'rt 1 was a deficit instead. Sir R. S'out had doubted whether our finances would stand the strain put, on them, but he thought that was an unpatriotic thing for the member for Wellington to say. One fact that could not be denied wai that every year siuce the Govt rnment toolf" office there was a substantial surplus, and that every year the revenue had been on exceedingly sound lines. If thai was not sound finance, he did not know what sound finance was. In spite of those repeated surpluses, every year the Opposition declared there would be a deficit, but they had heard those cries falsified year after year. The Budget had been stigmatised as a wild cat Budget, which contained nothing but borrowiog. He was against borrowing — that is, an increase of the public debt and an increase of taxation ; but he did not call it borrowing to

obt'in lians from England which p-iid fur themselvta. He give credit to the T ea^urer for having put the position uf the public debb clearly before the House and couutry, and he was glad to see that the money raised by the Government had not been added to the burdens of the taxpayers. He held that with the exception of the quarter of a million for road 3 in the North Island, there were no proposals for borrowing either this or next year. He warmly approved of the proposals for purchasing laud for settlement, but he hoped the Government would give advances to settlers on the improvements they made. Referring to the cheap-money scheme, he thought the Government could borrow cheaper than other people, and that some scheme could be devised for assisting farmers, but he did not know whether the Treasurer's scheme would work out successfully or not. He hoped the cheap-money scheme would receive full consideration, as that was absolutely necessary when the bill dealing with" it came before the House. He was glad to see the encouragement proposed to be given to dairy farming, and he hoped provision would be made for giviDg advances to farmers who started dairy factories, as he regarded dairy farmers as a most useful class of settlers. The Government deserved every credit for settling the people on the land, and it was absolutely necessary they should have money for this purpose. He held that on the whole there had been no financial proposals ever placed before the country which tended so much to the benefit of the colony at large.

Dr NEWMAN referred to the guilelessness of young members in accepting this Budget as something wonderful. He said the chief oddity about it was that one got one impression on reading it over, but one got quite a different impression on reading it over again. The Budget, in fact, was one of complete woe, and there never was one that contained more startling thing.". There was no remission of taxation whatever in the Budget, and they found that 500 co-operative men had been dismissed in the last six months and compelled to look for work elsewhere. He complained of the extreme difficulty members had in examining the accounts of the colony, and said they should be kept in simpler fashion to enable the House to understand the figures. He believed the Treasurer's surplus was just about £200,000, not £290,000 as claimed by Mr Ward, who had credited himself with £80,000 that he had no right to at all. Mr Ward had also floated more deficiency bills than any other Treasurer in office for many years past, and he claimed that any man who floated deficiency bills was borrowing in aid of revenue. Having flown a good many more kites than his predecessors the Treasurer now claimed an excess of revenue over expenditure. His opinion was, the more they studied the tables attached to the Financial Statement the more they would be convinced that they should be called financial "fables," as every page of those tables contained some mistakes. They were told by Ministers (who were cheered all over the country for saying so) that the net debt of the colony had decreased since they took office ; but the fact was, according to their own Budget, that the net debt of the colony had increased during the three years of the present Ministry by £1,086,000. A peculiar thing about the Budget was that the Treasurer had promised something to every part of the community. He promised help $o the fruitgrowers, to the aged pensions, to small farmers cheap carriage. But the promises would fall far short of performances. If the Treasurer wanted to raise revenue let him put a crushing duty on imported tobacco. That would return a large amount of revenue. He condemned the consols system. As to financial aid to settlers, that was a most ingenious thing, but the Treasurer could not possibly borrow it at 3£ per cent. The principle of lending money to small farmers was, at the same time, a good one in moderation. He said his estimate of the borrowing policy shadowed forth in tho Budget of this non-borrowing Government was £7,218,000, besides the continuous borrowing of £2,250,000 a year. There was no denying the fact that the Treasurer proposed to borrow more money than any Treasurer had ever yet proposed in any one year, and the colony could not possibly stand it. He regretted that the Government had not gone in for a loan for the purpose of completing our railways. That would be much better than the loan proposals of the present Budget.

Mr MORRISON congratulated Mr Ward on the statesmanlike proposals be had submitted to the House, and also on the handsome surplus he had shown in his Budget. He did not claim to be an expert, but he could not help referring to certain comments made by Opposition speakers on the Treasurer's proposals. Hs combated several of those statements, and defended the proposals of the Government, contending that there was no analogy whatever between the money formerly borrowed and that proposed to be raised for farmers. In the former case the whole colony had to pvp interest, whilst in the latter the farmers them•elves would pay for the money advanced. As regards borrowing money for land for settlement, he maintained it was the duty of the Government to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the act. He spoke at some leDgth on the question of Protection, and severely criticised Sir R. Stout's Liberalism, asserting that if Sir R. Stout did not fall into line before the session closed he would find that he (Mr Morrison) and other Government supporters were nob dumb dog 6, as h3h 3 had described them lasb night.

Mr ALLEN referred to Mr Ward's speech as a vigorous attempt ta prove that all the proposals in the Budget meant no borrowing whatever, except £250,000 for opening up roads. The other proposals, however, were, according to the Treasurer, no borrowing [at all, as the colony had not to pay interest. Neither had tke colony to pay for railways, as the railways are a source of revenue to the colony to the extent of 3 per cent. What they would receive from land he could not say. The Treasurer, however, practically admitted that all these new proposals were borrowing. As regarded Mr Ward's past history ; also he was a borrower and a plunger by nature, and he had voted for the million loan floated in 1887. There could, further, be no greater proof that the present were a borrowing Government than the fact that the public debt had increased during the last three years by over a million and a half. The total loans raised by tnis Government were £840 600, not including Treat-ury bills. He should not like to say what future loaT s would be if the House agreed to all the borrowing proposals of the Budget. The Premier had given them a curious speech lash night, in which his stamping and roaring were so violent that he was informed on good authority that serious damage had been done to the part of the building on which the Premier was standing. Mr Seddon had spoken of Liberalism, but he (Mr Allen) regarded it as bastard Liberalism. The Opposition, on the other hand, containpd several men actuated by true Liberalism. They did not believe in the Liberalism that gave the "spoils to the victors" ; that made appointments to the civil service not in accordance with the act ; that one day attacked the salaries of ci\ il servants, and the next day replaced them ; that misled the House as to the bills before it (he

refe«rcd to clause 21 of th° Liquors Ac 1 ) ; and tha 1 ; sf-t aside the Disqualification Act, all of which the present Government had done. The Premier' 3 speech consisted almost solely of an attack on Sir R. Stout. He (Mr Allen) thought it had come with singularly bad grace from Mr Seddon when, if the records of the House were searched, it would be found that the Premier owed his political existence to the advocacy of the senior member for Wellington, who, moreover, was Mr Seddon's former leader. He (Mr Allen) held that under the Government proposals they were offering special inducements to farmers to mortgage their farms, and that he thought would prove very injurious to farmers themselves. If money were to be lent to farmers at reduced rates of interest, then the Government insurance rate of interest would also be reduced, which would seriously affect policyholders. He blamed the Government for the manner in which they made appointments in the civil service, and said many of these appointments were merely political. Referring to Mr Ward's speech at Oamaru, in which he claimed so much credit for Mr M'Kenzie's land settlement, he quoted from figures to show that the Bettlement of the Atkinson Government exceeded that of the present Government very considerably, and said the settlement of the present Ministry existed merely on paper. If the Government were so successful in this direction, how was it that the land fund had decreased every year since they had come into office ? The Government had claimed to be a non-borrowing Government, but it was proved this was not the case, and their present proposals for borrowing overshadowed those of every other Government that had been in office.

Mr MILLAR complimented the Treasurer on the surplus he had shown, and said that nothing he had heard from the other side of the House had shaken his faith in the fact that a surplus existed. The Government had acted improperly in several particulars, but the Opposition when they were in power had filled the civil service with their friends, had appointed Judge Edwards, and Mr Moss as British Resident at Rarobonga, and made many other objectionable appointments. He defended the administration of the Government, and said he had been ritarned to the House at the last election pledged to support the purchasing of large estates. Where was the money to come from to buy those estates if it were not borrowed in some form or other ? He did not know what was meant by "spoils to the victors." If it meant that it gave employment to men who were dismissed from their employment for taking a prominent part in elections he would say it was perfectly right. He himself knew of half a dozen such cases as that he referred to. He took exception to Mr Allen's statement that the unemployed now are greater than ever, and although there were a good many unemployed, they were not so numerous as in 1884 or 1887. The Government were to be commended for endeavouring to cope with this difficulty as they were doing. He agreed with nearly the whole of the Budget proposals of the Government, but he objected to so much land being disposed of by lease in perpetuity, which he considered was worse than a freehold. He should support the proposal to spend £250,000 on land for settlement, as he was sent to the House pledged to support such a proposal. After referring to several other points in the Budget, he expressed the opinion that it would meet with the support of the country. Captain RUSSELL moved the adjournment of the debate. — Agreed to.

THE PREMIER IN A PASSION.

The extraordinary speech of the Premier last night showed even more unmistakably than the utterance of the Colonial Treasurer that the Budget interviews which you have published, more especially the masterly analysis of Sir R. Stout, went home right up to the hilt. The Premier ramped and raged and roared, and when Mr T. Mackenzie, who sits opposite to him, with ironical seeming-innocence, mildly, interjected, while Mr Seddon was shouting himself hoarse, " Can't hear," the House could not forbear a hearty laugh. But the Premier was in no laughing humour. In terms of bitter denunciation he referred to the senior member tor Wellington and his interviewer as conspirators, and simply because he had courteously allowed himself to be interviewed he accused Sir Robert of preferring the stiletto to the weapon of the open highwayman. Never before perhaps has even Mr Seddon allowed himself to be betrayed into such an undignified exhibition of passion. For nearly the whole of his hour he faced and addressed himself directly to Sir R. Stout. In the language of the New Zealand Times : "He springs upon Sir Robert at the start, hurling a shout at him which ought to be audible at Karori and Petone and Miramar and Island Bay. ' Cold-blooded speech,' he yells at him. Waving arms, working shoulders, swaying trunk, shaking head, jerking body, blazing eyes, purple complexion — all give force to the term cold-blooded. He shook his fist at the knight, or varied the gesture by pointing a finger, trembliDg with emotion, at him, and when Sir Robert chuckled or openly laughed the Premier thumped his desk and belched forth his invective like a volcano in eruption "

SIR ROBERT STOUT'S INDICTMENT.

Sir R. Stout's powerful indictment of the Government last nighfc and his telling exposure of the falsity of their boasted self-reliance, strong finance, and non-borrowing has been much discussed to-day. Those members of the party who have not finally abandoned all sense of personal responsibility and rational independence must have felt uneasy when the indignant tones of the knight rang out with the assertion that in no Parliament in the world had the Liberal members been treated as in this Parliament. Every bill was forced upon them at the point of the bayonet, and they had been driven like dumb dogs into the lobby time after time. This had been done. "No," interjected an hon. member. "Why," replied Sir Robert, " I tell the hon. gentleman who says • No ' that it has been done to him, and in his innermost soul he must feel ashamed." Ministers were converting Liberalism, the member for Wellington continued, into a pure autocracy. Members were not allowed to express an opinion lest a Minister should resign, and they were most improperly and unconstitutionally threatened with a dissolution; whilst threats were also hurled at the Upper House should they dare come between the Minister for Lands and his intentions. That these charges went deeply home was very evident by the intense heat and bitterness with which the Premier replied that " the hon. gentleman will find some of them to be dogs that can both bark and bite, and they will bite for the people of this country."

THE LAND BILL.

During his speech on the second reading of the Land Bill* Mr Massey (Waitemata), in dwelling upon the question of the insecurity of tenure involved in the bill for the resumption of private estates by the Government, ventured to prophesy that once the principle waß affirmed there would quickly come proposals to reduce the area the owner of the estate might retain, and that whereas the bill provided that he might keep for his own use 1000 acres of first-

class land, he would probably soon find himself limited to 250 acres. Mr Massey could hardly have expected such early verification of his warning, but it has already come in the shape of the following proposed amendment of clause 6 of the bill, to be moved by Mr G. W. Russell, of Riccarton :: — •' Provided that in the case of land situated within five miles of any borough or town district the limitation in this section shall be reduced to 250 acres."

TEVIOT FRUIT.

The railway report states that the fruifc industry is attaining considerable dimensions in the Teviot district, Ofcago. Last year there were forwarded by horse waggons to Lawrence railway station, a distance of 40 to 50 miles by road, no less than 326 tons of green fruit for the Dunedin market, or about double the quantity for the previous year. The orchards are all on small holdings of a few acres each, and the above quantity was grown on an aggregate area of about 1500 acres. The total weight of fruit carried to Dunedin last year was 500 tons.

JOTTINGS.

The sensation of the Budget debate last evening was the astonishing statement made by Sir Robert Stout that certain Ministers of the Crown trafficked for the votes of the Railway Union of Canterbury prior to the general election, the price to be paid being the dismissal of certain officials of the department and the appointment of others. "I have the names of both sets of men," said the knight, " and will produce them if a committee is granted to me." Ministerial explanations in this connection took place to-day.

The greater part of the Treasurer's speech was last evening, according to Sir Robert Stout, mainly devoted to an attack upon certain newspaper extracts — an attack, he said, that was lowering to the dignity of the House, if not lowering to the dignity of the newspapers.

The senior member for Wellington declares that table 8 of the Budget is a juggle in figures, entirely misleading and absolutely fallacious. "Speak up, we can't hear," suggests Clutha Mackenzie to the Premier, who is roaring like a stentor.

" On the face of this Budget there is nothing but borrowing. It is borrow writ large," says Sir R. Stout. "I have not a word to take back," he went on, "of what I said to my interviewer. On the contrary, I might have said much more, and that I shall now say," and he proceeded to say it with much force and purpose.

" Three millions of actual borrowing for the current year," said the Dunedin knight continuing, " I declare is an audacious proposal and entirely a borrowing Budget."