THE COLONIST.

Colonist, Volume XII, Issue 1173, 22 December 1868, Page 2

THE COLONIST.

NELSON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1868.

SPEECHES THEN AND SPEECHES NOW.

What seemed at the moment a palpable hit made by Mr. Shephard at the nomination was the. quotation from an article in The Colonist of June, 1867, praising two speeches that gentleman made when he unsuccessfully contested his own district with Mr. Edward Baigent. The shot, however, falls harmless in the quarter to which it was directed, and it goes back to Mr. Shephard and strikes him with double force. First of all, the quotation as he gave it is unfair, inasmuch as only half a sentence is taken at the conclusion, while a point of real importance is studiously struck out. The concluding sentence should read thus, the italics mark the omitted portion : —

"Of Mr. Shephard himself toe know notJiinff* except that he is a country magistrate, who has never taken much outward interest in politics; hut, taking his speeches as they stand, and of course believing that his honor and good faith are pledged according thereto, we can only say that we should be gkd to see a score of-honest men returned to the House of Representatives professing the principles and doctrines which Mr. Shephard's addresses contain."

This was written rasarding Mr. Shephard's speeches of June, 1567 ; and, if the same speeches, " taken us they stood," as they were then, were under criticism now, we should say a similar thing. But the case is altered. Mr. Shephard's speeches now are very different from what they were then. His printed address was far from frank; his first speech la^fc Tuesday contained numerous transparent, fallacies on important points in governmental science and experience, the theory of which he seemed last year so well to comprehend. Mr. Shephnrd told his audience last Tuesday, that all measures of reform and economy must come from within and not from without, from the Government and not from the public; and, when Mr. Luckie pointed out this extraordinary f.illupy among, others, he undoubtedly had Mr. Shephard's early speeches before his mind, for he said ho expected very different things from Mr. Shephard, notwithstanding his late dreary financial letters. There are numerous other fallacies in tho speeches of Mr. Shephurd, bearing on the fundamental principles of practical Government; but most of these were referred to and refuted last Tuesday evening, and it is not necessary now to discuss them again. The two series of speeches are as different as daylight and dark, and, discussing them on their own merits alone, an unbiassed critic who praised the early efforts, must on the same principle condemn the more recent.

Aparb from this there aro the important questions, Who brought forward Mr. Shephard ? at the present moment who aro his strongest supporters ? into whose hands and for whoso support has lie been coquetting? Is it not those who have nio3t carefully defended Mr. Stafford and his policy, who, when Mr. Stafford's Ministry was closely pressed for a vote, voted witli it; but recorded an adverse vote when the Ministry had 11 fow to spare ? Mr. Shephard is staunchly supported by and is a supporter of Mr. Curtis, and an admirer of his theories, although Mr. Curtis himself some two short years ago said thai; only by liis being " muzzled" by the Superintendency, would the electors effectuMlj'svkoep him from assailing Provincialism in the House-,q£ Eepresentatives. The muzzle was ineffective, for anti-Provincial measures have been advocated and voted for in the Assembly by Mr. Curtis; while hero in Nelson, bit by hit, by improper management and bad finance,-the Province has been reduced to a worse position than it ever heretofore occupied, a largo surplus having in less than two years been converted into a still larger deficit, -which ha 3 only been reduced lately by reason of no expenditure going on except departmental expenses, all public work? having been stopped for months. Mr. Shephard has declared himself favorable to Proviucialism ; so did Mr. Curtis; but both fail to show how it is possible under their policy to support it, unless by means of a heavy Local Property and Income Tax for which Mr. Shephard, like Mr. Curtis, professes a strong liking. Mr. Shephard, instancing thecuso of certain counties in England where landlords are not assessed for local rates, said that a proposal bad been mooted among some of those counties in favor of levying an Income Tax for local purposes; for road rates, police rates, prison rates, and similar expenses. But roads, police, and prison rates, as they affect property only, and are employed to protect and benefit properly only, should never bo levied on income. One might as well say that the rates levied by the Board of Works should be levied on a man's earnings, and not on tho real or household property he occupied or owns. The scheme will not hold water, and even (which we do not admit) if it did suit in districts in England where landlords do not pay local rates as well as their tenants, it would not suit in a country like this where there is bo much lund lying unoccupied, and bringing no revenue. With respect to the Income Tux which Mr. Shephard favors, he failed entirely to explain how the holders of Colonial Debentures could be reached, for his scheme did not appear intended to affect them, but only private mortgagees, the class of public security holders, who, it baa been shown, have so greatly benefited by the Public Debts Act, escaping the operation of the tax. Mr. Shephard protests that his scheme does not mean two taxes. If it does not mean two, then it means nine different taxes, one iv ouch Province, according to the condition of each; which would be intolerable in dealing with foreign private mortgagees in the way of collecting the tax from them through the owner, ns is done in England. If it is two, (and 6d. per pound for the Imperial coffers, and 3d. per pound for the local treasury looks marvellously like two taxes,) then it is a continuance of that system of partnership between the General Government and the Provinces which Mr. Shephard join* with M,r, Curtis in con'

demning. Mr. Shepbard is in favor of borrowing more money; and he has, throughout his late speeches, given strong indications of leaning to the Stafford ministry. He did not fully meet questions. In reply to one question on Tuesday he admitted that the Stafford Ministry's mismanagement of the war had been very serious, and had lod to great disasters. Yet, notwithstanding that mismanagement, and the indubitable proof of the disasters that had occurred, he, in reply to a question as to whether he would support the Stafford Ministry who had so conducted the war, pleaded the incompleteness of newspaper accounts of the war, and that he should wait until the House of Kepresentafcives took evidence! These are some of the utter contradictions in his speeches, the cause of which we do not profess to explain ; but, while adhering to our laudatory notice of the speeches of June, 1867, knowing only them, we, on the Belf-same grounds, coupled with the curious and contradictory advocacy of Mr. Curtis's opposing principles, cannot but dissent from the misty and contradictory and trimming theories of December, 1868. With respect to Mr. Edwards, we object to some of his doctrines too. Both he and Mr. Shepbard repose confidence in the self-reliant policy, in which, judgr ing from past events, we can have little faith. But there is this difference between the two candidates: Mr. Shepbard proposes to borrow to meet the cost of the,, war.; ,Mr, Edwards proposes the levying of ..a general Incomeand iPropeHy Tax for that purpose. •. Mr. Edwards' speech, though somewhat haltingly delivered, shows as much practical acquaintance with the " business" of politics as Mr. Shephard's did with the "theory " some eighteen months ago. ' With Mr. Edwarda'do6trines of the necessity of in fnsing sound commercial management into the financia systerri of the Colony all will agree with, and, all things considered, we believe that Mr. Edwards will.more strictly oppose Mr. Stafford's policy, judging from his speech, than we cau gather Mr. Shephard means, either from his speechosor the antecedents of many of his leading friends. We do not deny that, notwithstanding the erroneous results which have followed Mr. Shephard's throwing himself into the arms of tho«<e who have persistently opposed his doctrines of 1867, he possesses considerable ability, and is'an educated gentleman • but the contradictions in his speeches then and now are so palpably apparent that it is impossible to mate them dove-tail one into the other. In truth it is " trim," and trim generally overreaches itself. In Mi*. Edwards' speech there are, as we have indicated, several points in which we do not.concur. But as a maiden hustings address it has certainly very much merit. His opposition to borrowing, and his proposal to make the wealthy'bear the main part of the native war, by means of an Income Tax which shall reach debenture-holders and absentees, is one ■■t.hnt merits great support, and drives into a corner tlie peddling Local Tax of which his opponent is so enamored. /.,■-,'. The contest will;be a close one, and each side is girding up its loins,.for action. Taking all the ppeeches", including Mr. ShephaVd's productions of 1867, and his late letters on Juuance, we conclude that Mr. Shephard is a theorist, and. .Mr. Edwards, however otherwise we may differ from him, is a sound practical business man. ""'. v "