The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1886. CHEAP MONEY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1530, 10 July 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1886. CHEAP MONEY.

Day by day Sir Robert Stott’s conservatism is developing itself. The ether evening he launched out against Sir George Grej’s most liberal measure for settling the people on the land, and last Thursday evening ho tried to crush Mr Macandrew’s bill for providing cheap money for farmers. We have already given a synopsis of Mr Macandrew’s bill, and commented on what we believed to be its great faults. It would take too much space to recapitulate all the machinery provided > by it now, but briefly stated it amounts to this : If a farmer wants money the Government will be bound to back bis bill for half the property tax value of bis land, the Government taking a lien on the land to secure the repayment of the money. Everything is ts be done with paper, and yet the present banks are to be allowed to retain the monopoly of issuing bank notes. Thin, we ask, if we are to establish' a papsr currency like this, why is it that we should allow foreign companies the privilege of carrying on an opposition paper c«rrencj, and thus enable them to bring Government money into disrepute 7 If the banks were not allowed to issue paper money they would be very glad to get paper money, so as to issue it instead of gold, because i* that way they would save by it in the wear and tear of the gold. On the contrary, so long as they are allowed to issue their own paper their policy must be to bring discredit on Government paper, and in carrying it out they will refusa to accept in payment of debts Government notes. As soon as tbs peopls find out that the banks will not take these notes the whole country will refuse to take them, with the result that Government paper money will be brought into disrepute, and there will thenceforth be no chance of establishing a National Bank. This is tbs great objection we have to the Bill. Bids by side with it we want to see established a National Bank, having the exclusive right of issuing paper money. But it was not on this point that Sir Robert Stout opposed the Bill, but on the ground that it would destroy democracy. What an absurdity. At present money rings and mortgage companies, etc., bold the lives and liberties, literally ,

speaking, of a largo number of people in their bands; they dare noi buy a a cow or sell a pig without the sanction of their grasping and unrelenting masters, and Sir Robert Stout gays that to liberate these from such a hateful tyranny is to destroy democracy. There was a time when Sir Robsrt could reason fairly and argue logically but those were the days when he spoke what be felt, and when the ringing cheers of his audiences testified how truly he gave utterance to their views. Those days are gone, and Sir Robert now stands amidst the aristocracy with saintly decorations on his breast. His reasoning (sealties appear to be completely absorbed in self admiration, bis logic in trying to wriggle out of former professions. In Christchurch some time ago he literally jumped down the throats of a few working men who represented to him the desirability of establishing a National Bank ; he characterised it as utter nonsense. In the debate on Mr Macandrew’s Bill last Ihu red ay evening, he admitted it was within the function of the State W control its currency, and to withdraw from the Banks the power to issue notes. This is consistency with a vengeance. Six months ago it was monstrous to think of a National Bank ; it was utter nonsense ; now it is within the functions of the State to do such things if it is desirable. Really the inconsistencies of the Premier are becoming most extraordinary. Who can beliefs what he says ? What is the value of hie opinion when we find it u variable as the shade by the light quivering aspen made 7” But Sir Robert is afraid of putting too much power in the hauls of the Government, and on this ground be is not favorably disposed towards such proposals. Another thing he is afraid of is that to interfere between mortgagees and farmers is not within the functions of the State. To the first we reply .that it is better to have power in the hands of the Government than in the hands of rings; to the second, that there is no limit to ' the functions of the State. The State comprises the people, and whatever is for their happiness is within State functions. Governmsnts are creatures of the people, and if they misuse the power placed in their keeping their own downfall must follew. Once upon a time Sir Robert knaw all this, but he seems to have forgotten it. It is, however, useless to pursue the subject further. The bill has been carried in spita of him through the second reading, but whether it will go any further is very doubtful.