THE Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, 5th SEPTEMBER, 1898.

Southland Times, Issue 14146, 5 September 1898, Page 2

THE Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, 5th SEPTEMBER, 1898.

Two of the most successful methods by which the Seddon Ministry maintains its hold upon the masses—and the Treasury benches—are the manipulation of their Estimates so as to come out with a round surplus every year, and the projection of specious legislation which they can hardly hope to carry. With respect to the former we have the Premier’s own authority for saying that it is easily accomplished, and an indication of bad management. True, he gave utterance to these expressions when he was in. search of reasons for superseding the Railway Commissioners, with the object of regaining for his Ministry the enormous leverage the patronage of that department affords. We have no purpose at present of disputing Mr Seddon’s dictum on the subject. Before passing on, however, it may be remarked that if it is bad management to show a profit on the working of the railways—a purely commercial concern, and distinctly run on profit and loss principles—it is assuredly a thousand times worse management to show a profit in running the government of the country. Beyond question the making of money is not a function of the Cabinet of New Zealand or any other. It is their business to administer the affairs of the country with the “utmost economy, consistent with efficiency,” to use a phrase that has many a time been used, no doubt, by the Premier himself. That accomplished excess revenue should be practically rebated, by concessions on taxation, especially upon the necessaries of life that minister most effectively to the comfort and well-being of the people as a whole. To persistently follow the opposite’course, and designedly create larger surpluses is only a form of disguised borrowing. The argument that the money is devoted to public works does not really touch the question at issue.

With regard to the other method referred to by which the masses are deluded, or rather, by which their allegiance is held in leash, the Ministry have undoubtedly found it a most successful one, and, to use a colloquialism, “ have worked it for all it is worth.” Session after session they have contrived to promote bills which they could not possibly have expected the Legislature to pass ; which, indeed, it has been again and again broadlyasserted, they had no desire to see on the Statute Book—at least not in a hurry. These crude measures, however, served their tactical purpose. They afforded opportunities for bombastic exhibitions of zeal — largely feigned, it is to be feared—for the interest of the “workers.” The morality—rather the immorality—of beguiling the people in this manner is obvious, and the Old Age Pensions Bill now before the House, is a case in point. From the remarks of the leader of the Opposition and others the bill has undergone considerable modifications. That implies that it was introduced without due consideration and in a form so impracticable that its rejection by any competent and impartial critic was inevitable. In last issue we gave a resume, of the work of a committee set up by the Imperial Government to consider the same question. Below we now give what we consider a very weighty opinion on the morale of the second method under notice by which the present Ministry has contrived to maintain itself in office. The extract is from the British Weekly, one of the most ably conducted, most independent, and most liberal journals in Britain :—

The Old Age Pensions Committee have reported, to put it in brief, that no scheme which has been placed before them is practicable. They set forth their reasons for thinking so only too plainly and convincingly. The Liberal organs, especially the Westminster Gazette, have thereupon raised the cry of betrayal against Mr Chamberlain and his nearer allies, while the Chronicle has sternly rebuked this recrimination, and has urged that it is the duty of Liberals to do something immediately. In this quarrel our sympathies and convictions are entirely with the Westminster Gazette. He must have a very short memory, indeed, who does not remember what use was made of the old age pensions cry at the election, and how the bait attracted many poor voters. In fact, we were astonished at- the time, hardly believing that a promise of 5s or so a week after what is to very many the impossible age of sixty-five would have much power. Mr Chamberlain, however, is a very expert e'.ectioneerer, and he knew better. Now it is quite certain that the Liberals wish to help the aged poor quite as much as Mr Chamberlain, but they were held back by that almqst superseded faculty known as conscience. They saw tjhat tjie problem was one of immense difficulty, and they had no hesitation in pronouncing the schemes laid on the table impracticable. They were taunted on that account with having no interest in the proposal, with being careless in the concerns of the poor, which were safe only under a Unionist Administration. Mr Chamberlaij) himself had no scheme that any practical person woqld look at twice, and yet he went aboubdeclaring that there was no diffieul-y in framing such a scheme. We call that thoroughly im.moral. It ought to be denounced from eve y platform in the kingdom. The Liberals wid utterly fail in their duty if they take the Chronicle’s view and do not expose in its true colours this procedure. As for their own duty to do something, we agree with our esteemed contemporary that they should recognise it. The preseno system is a crying scandal and a grave wrong. But before they premise to do something they must

know what that something is. It must be feasible and they must agree upon it. So far as we have seen, nobody has pointed out just what can be done. The problem is far graver than it appears to be. The Chronicle itself confesses that the difficulty commences not at sixty-five, but at fortyfive. If it is not possible to make a pension scheme beginning at sixty-live, how is it possible at forty-five ? As for interference with the friendly societies, they want no interference, and nobody has shown how they can be helped effectually. There is no complaint, but much the reverse, against Mr Chamberlain or against his friends that they attempted to solve the question, but the fact that a Royal Commission failed to find a scheme in two years, and that a committee of experts, after another two years, have also reported unfavourably, shows what a hard nut there is to crack. What we denounce is the crime of raising expectations without knowing how they are to be fulfilled. This we call immorajand scandalous in Mr Chamberlain, ami we shall equally call it immoral and scandalous in the Liberal party if they attempt for a temporary giin to desert the paths of honour and truth.