The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1887. SIR JULIUS VOGEL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1649, 20 October 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1887. SIR JULIUS VOGEL.

Sir Julius Vogel has been chosen leader of the Opposition. He is certainly the ablest man in New Zealand; he has no equal as a financier or a Btatesraan; he is head, and should above all the others, but at the same time we think it would have been much better if Mr Ballance had taken the lead. Sir Julius Yogel is very unpopular with the majority of the members. Much as they dislike Major Aikinson their dislike of Sir Julius Vogel is still more intense, and it is not desirable that one who ia so strongly objected to should lead. Why Sir Julius Vogel is so much objected to we have not yet been able to ascertain. We have frequently asked the question, but no one has ever been able to give us any tangible reason for objecting to him, and consequently we are driven to the conclusion that no reason can be given. " He introduced the gambling policy of borrowing," is the only reply we have ever received to our inquiries as to what he has done, but that does not constitute sufficient grounds for objecting to him. There is no man living out of a lunatic asylum who would undertake to »ay Sir Julius Vogel was not right as regards his Public Works policy, and if it had been carried out as he introduced it we should hare been in a different position to-day. Sir Julius Vogel was not Premier when the Public Works policy wan introduced. Sir William Eox was Premier, Sir Julius Vogel was Colonial Treasurer. Sir F. D. Bell and the Hon. W. Gisborne are the only other members of the Cabinet who are still alive. In the House of Representatives 35 members voted for it and 6 against it, and in the Legislative Council 25 voted for it and 8 against it, and the wboje country received the echeme with demonstrations of unqualified satisfaction. The coun j try was in a fearful state of depression)

ihen; it was, eome cay, worse than it s now; the introduction of this policy brought back to it immediate prosperity; speculators made immense ( fortunes, and it is these men—these very men who gained most by the Public "Works policy—that are crying " down " with its author now. Here is where the essence of the whole thing, comes in. These people who | made money oat of the Public Works policy, and who dojnot like to pay the taxes which it involved, are crying "Down with Sir Julius Vogel!" and poor unthinking people take their cue from these selfish monopolists, and parrot-like repeat what they say. Sir Julius Vogel has done nothing to deserve the odium heaped upon him; he is the victim of thoughtlessness. If people only reflected on what has taken place they would see the injustice of singling out Sir Julius Vogel for all the blame. Sir William Fox was Premier when the Public "Works policy was introduced, and could have stopped it if he thought fit, yet no one thinks of blaming Sir "William Fox for it. Sixty members in both Houses of Parliament voted for it, and fourteen against it, yet no one ever thinks of condemning any of these sixty members for it; but all the blame is to be thrown on the phoulders of Sir Julius Vogel. This is not fair. The original proposal of Sir Julius Vogel was conceived in a wise and generous spirit. He proposed that money should be spent at the rate of £1,000,000 per year, and that the immigrants as they arrived should be settled on the land. He also provided against the curse of political railways, by inserting a provision in the Bill to make the land pay for a share of the cost of railways. The big landowners threw this provision out of the Bill, and made political railways, and now they have not the slightest scruple in fixing the whole blame on Sir Julius Vogel. They, who bought the land at from 10s to £2 per acre and sold it at from £lO to £2O per acre, say now that Sir Julius Vogel ruined the colony, and half the population of this colony foam at the mouth in denouncing him; yet not one of them can show any reasonable grounds for it. There is another view of the case. Sir Julius Vogel was away in England for about nine years previous to 1884. It was during these nine years the political railways wore built and the jobbery and the corruption went on far worse than at any other period the colony's history. There were lew, if any, political railways made up to the time Sir Julius Vogel left New Zealand for England. Up to that time the railways made were necessary, but thenceforward the cry for railways increased, and the Continuous Ministry to keep in power bought the votes of members for the consideration of •pending so much money on public works in their district. Above all others Major Atkinson is responsible for this; there is no ten politicians put together in New Zealand who have done so much to muddle the affairs of the colony as Major Atkinson, yet he is once more installed in office. It is certainly unfair and unjust to throw all the blame on Sir J unll 8 Yogel> b u * is the thoughtlessness of the people that they cannot see it. Sir Julius Vogel has made greater mistakes since he came to New Zealand in 1884 than he did previously. He certainly deserves blame for having raised expectations which he knew, or at least ought to have known, he could not realise. He told us that what we wanted was confidence, and he would make the colony go ahead by leaps and bounds. Had he instead faced the difficulty boldlv, and told the people their exact position, he would have been listened to then, and his words would have had immense weight. Had he pronounced 'in favor of Protection, and stood firmly for it then, there would not have been a more powerful man in New Zealand to-day. But he did not; he raised false hopes with delusive promises; he then sowed the wind, and is now reaping the whirlwind, and in our opinion it is to that his present unpopularity is due. We condemned him in 1884 because we saw well it was impossible to realise the hopes he raised, and we knew the days for leaps and bounds had gone by, but now that he has toned down to take practical views of the condition of the colony there is no reason why we should object to him. He has the ability if he likes to exercise it to set the finances of the colony on a proper footing, and we cerainly think it is a pity he cannot have a fair opportunity of doing so.