The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1888. MR RHODES ON FINANCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1734, 8 May 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1888. MR RHODES ON FINANCE.

Now that we hare done Mr Rhodes justice with regard to the unfair charges made against him by the Timaru Herald, his most ardent admirers cannot honestly accuse us of any unworthy motives in criticising his political address. Mr Ehodes stated that he was pledged to no party until he had heard Sir Harry Atkinson's financial statement. That decided him, and he promised the Ministry to support them on every question except retrenchment in education and further borrowing. That was very good, but the best of it was that he did support the Ministry even in excessive borrowing, and that in order to hide the enormity of his inconsistency he did not tell the exact truth to his constituents. In his speech in Temuka he tried his best to make the Stout-Vogel Government look as black as possible, and his own darling Sir Harry a "white-haired boy," but it is somewhat remarkable that his figures do not tally with those of his beloved chief. Dealing with No. 1 account of the Public "Works fund, Mr Rhodes said " this account up to the 30th of September last was overdrawn to the extent of £134,000," and further on he said "the Loan Act of last nession (that is the Loan Act for which Mr Rhodes voted) authorised £500,000 (half a million) to be raised for the purpose of No. 1 account, of which amount the StoutVogel Ministry had actually forestalled (that is, spent beforehand) £134,000 as I have already shown." What rascals the Stout-Vogel Ministry were to be sure, but it is rather unfortunate for Mr Rhodes that his statement is not true. Sir Harry Atkinson in the Financial Statement delivered in Parliament on the Ist of last November —which Mr Rhodes must have read because he uses not only the same ideas but the same language says with regard to No. 1 account" On the 30th September last there was a credit balance of £247,292, subject to liabilities amounting to £280,495." The question here is who is to be believed ? Did Sir Harry Atkinson tell the truth in the presence of a Parliament composed of the picked men of the colony, or did Mr Rhodes tell it to his not overcritical audience in the Volunteer Hall ? For our own part we think Sir Harry Atkinson a more reliable authority, and consequently must come to the conclusion that either Mr Rhodes caonot : subtract £247,292 from £280,495 correctly, or that he deliberately misrepresented the figures in order to find an excuse for the excessive borrowing of his party. But this is not all. Sir Harry Atkinson further on said that " of the £280,495 only £162,000 will come in for payment by March next (that is March 1888), leaving only £85,292 for expenditure next year " (that is to March 1889). Now anyone hearing Mr Rhodes would be led to believe that the Stout-Vogel Ministry had spent £134,000 more than the amount of the account, whereas they actually left in the hands of Sir Harry Atkinson £247,292 to spend. Is this fair or honest? Mr Rhodes did not think that sum sufficient, and voted for borrowing another half million for that one account alone, and then boasted of his opposition to borrowing. It was certainly necessary for him to give some excuse for his action on borrowing, but we are sorry that he adopted the unfair one of blaming the Stout-Vogel Ministry for it. With regard to Nos. 2 and 3, the figures are fairly accurate, but the tone in which he treats them implies that all the money had been spent by the previous Ministry, and there was nothing else for it but to borrow. Sir Harry Atkinson did not represent matters in that way. He told the House that there was to the credit of !}he three accounts £1,419,194, against which there were liabilities amounting to £721,973, and that the colony could go on without borrowing any money until December 1889. Let us not forget that what Sir Harry and Mr Rhodes call " liabilities " are moneys left in the hands of the present Government to pay away for works done under their own supervision, so that actually in these three accounts the late Government left £1,419,194 to be spent in that way.

CORRUPTION. Mb Bhodes boasted that the present Ministry could not on any account be called ''the Continuous Ministry." We never had much objection to a fi Continuous Ministry," but we have the gravest objection to a " Continuous Policy" when that policy is mischievous. When Mr Postlethwaite supported the same party, he told his constituents on the stage of the Volunteer Hall, Temuka, that tb«y were a "lot of Yankee log*rollers." It is nearly four years since then, and we find Mr Postlethwaite's political protege Mr Ehodes now saying " It was impossible to get the House to take this view of it (no fresh borrowing) aj bo many members were interested iu jjjqr which further Bums were re,quir,e4" Here, phpp, is the old poliey, and the obf complaint; borpow jfloftey ao §ir Harry AjtHnson »ay 'retain' pQwer-raii*} tyotfy Mr Postlethwaite and Mr Bfeodes are Hiill his conscientious aupporfcßrs, Mf

Rhodes's language implies corruption as clearly, but not so outspokenly, aB Mr Postlethwaite's did in 1884. It means that money had to be borrowed to please those who wanted it spent in their districts, and Mr Rhodes supported that policy, notwithstanding that his own district did not require a half-penny. During the last general election, there was no question on which Mr Rhodes and his party were so outspoken as on the question of borrowing. Their principal cry was "no further borrowing," but here we find them the moment they get into power, borrowing, just in conformity with the " continuous policy " traditions so as to enable them to cement their forces together with a free distribution of the "loaves and fishes." Sir Harry Atkinson told them they could get on without borrowing any more until December 1889, that is, for 2 years, but they must have funds, and they compelled him to get them. Now, why are Messrs Rhodes and Postlethwaite so affectionately attached to a party whose traditions are so besmeared by this kind of corruption ? The answer is: They play iutu the hands of the capitalists and the money-rings ; they legislate in accordaace with the rights of capitalists, and they ignore the rights of man. This is the " continuous policy," and ii; is to it we object, and not to the personality of any Ministry which may carry it out. Let Sir Harry Atkinson change it and we shall support him as heartily as we oppose him now, but it will be found then that if he does Mr Rhodes will oppose him.

We are pretty well certain MiRhodes does not believe in further borrowing, but he prefers it and its consequent evils to a return to power of a Ministry that would turn the advantage of legislation in favor of the people, it was no wonder, therefore, that he found himself in an awkward position with regard to having supported a Ministry whose ideas of good government consists in " borrow so that we may buy votes," and perhaps he may be pardoned if he wriggled a bit to get out of such a difficulty. The North Islacd Trunk Line Loan had already been authorised, he said, and was not fresh borrowing, but ho did not tell us that it was the " Continuous Ministry " passed the Act which authorised it. He did not also tell us that the Stout-Vogel Ministry had power to raise the loan, but managed without it. But he tried to minimise the amount, and said only £868,000 was to be borrowed. If so, why is it that Sir Harry Atkinson oalled it a £1,000,000 loan, and why is it set down in the Act of Parliament as £1,000,000? The real honest truth of the borrowing proposals of the Government are—£l,ooo,ooo for the North Island trunk line, £1,000,000 for general purposes, £400,000 on short-dated debentures; making in all nearly 2£ millions. Sir Eobert Stout said it would not be necessary to borrow more than 2 millions within the next ten years, but here we have authorised the borrowing of more at once. The most dishonest part of the the affair, however, is the effort made to throw the whole blame on the Stout-Vogel Ministry, whereas in truth and in fact, according to fair Harry Atkinson's Financial Statement, nearly ft million and a half, which was sufficient to carry on to December 1889, was left in hand when that Ministry resigned. That Ministry borrowed only a million and a half during the three years they held office, and they left almost that amount behind them, and it is a cruel wrong to blame them unjustly, But this has always been the tactics of Conservatism, and Mr Ehodes has at a very early stage in his career shown great proficiency in the art by which his party have so long and so successfully been able to delude the people.