CORRESPONDENCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3571, 11 March 1886, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

MB TUENBULL'3 SPEECH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE THIARU HERALD. Sib, — Would you allow mo through your columns to Bay a word or two, by way of comment, concerning the speech delivered by Mr Turnbull on Monday evening ? Before beginning his address I handed him several written questions, with the request that he would endeavor to answer them. About half of these he attempted to answer ; the other half were left unanswered. Among the latter was the following, which I repeat here m the hopo of eliciting an answer through the columns of your paper : — " Are you m favor of subsidising Catholic schools, and if so, on what pretext could you refuse the samo concession to other religious bodies if they should choose to demand it P" This is a question which is engaging a good deal of attention m all parts of the colony at tho present time, and was surely worth answering. Was Mr Turnbull afraid to touch upon this question m view of certain circumstances which hare occurred lately to widen the breach between the Catholic and Protestant party ? Was he afraid of forfeiting the support of either side whichever way he answered ? His Btudied silence on this Bubjcct might be considered vory good policy, but it is certainly anything but honest. With reference to the questions which he did answer I wish now to say a few words. Theso were — (1) As to whether he would support any -scheme whereby tho lands of this colony might be restored to the people, making the State the only landlord? (2) What were his opinions as to tho relative merits of Freetrade and Protection? (3) Would he be m favor of extending the franchise to women ? In answer to the first of these he Baid : " I don't believo m land nationalization at all, as I consider that ono generation should not be bound by its predecessor, and that the people should have tho power to vary the incidence of taxation." I think it is hardly necessary to point out to Mr Turnbull that this answer implies a self-contradiction. If ono generation is not to be bound by it 3 predecessor, on what grounds does ho maintain that we should bo bound by the present system of private ownership m land ? Mr Turnbull admite that tho land belongs to the people, and yet ho would oppose any effort on their part tc resume possession of it. Is this not a somewhat anomalous position to take up ? Again, ho says, " people should have the power to vary the incidonce of taxation." Perhaps he will be good enough to tell us under what possiblo system the people could have greater power to regulate the incidence of taxation than under a system of State ownership ? I could understand Mr Tumbull's opposition to land nationalization were he abla to show that tho present system is cither just m principle or beneficial m practice, but I challengo him to prove that it has produced anything but social and political ruin and disaster m every country m which it has been allowed to tako root. In replying to tho second question, Mr Turnbull declared himself a strong protectionist. Ho even went further than that. He would prohihit tho importation of all goods which coulil bo manufactured hero by taxing them to the tune of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. Mr Turnbull seems to think that the foreign manufacturer who supplies us with goods abundantly and cheaply is an enemy from whom wo are bound to protect ourselves. By the same reasoning should the foreign manufacturer take it into his head tc send us shiploads of food and clothing sufficient to supply all our wants and distributo them amongst the community gratis, he would bo doing us a terriblo injury. Go to !Mr Turnbull ; " teach your grandmother to suck eggs." The peoplo are not to be led away by such political claptrap. Xct me ask Mr Turnbull what can be our object m borrowing money to erect breakwaters and deepen our harbors m order to facilitate the arrival of vessel} from other countries if we are to put a prohibitive duty on their cargoes ? Wo'ild it not be just as well, and much more effectual, to block our harbors up with stones ? Whilo speaking on this subject Mr Turnbull (it must have been unintentionally) made an admission which completely knocked all tho wind out of his argument. It was this : — " Had it not been that Sydney acted as a kind of safety-valvo m affording an outlet for our surplus labor, I don't know whatever we should havo done." Now let it be remembered that New South Wales is a freetrado country. If freetrado is such a bad thing as Mr Turnbull would have us believe, perhaps ho will tell us how it was that New South Wales was able to absorb a large portion of tho surplus labor of New Zealand and Victoria (a etrongly protected country) at a tinie when both these colonies were suffering under the greatest depression ? I take it that no better proof could be given of the advantages of freetrado than tho fact of New South Wales having moro work than she was able to accomplish at a time when, m the neighboring colonies, labor was a drug m the market. With reference to the third question, as to womanhood suffrage, Mr Turnbull treated the matter as a very good joke. It seema rather strange that a subject which is engaging tho sorious attention of the Imperial Parliament at the present time, should bo treated »3 a joko by tho facetious Member for Timaru. I fear I have already overstepped tho limits at your disposal, but as there are several other points m MrTurnbull's speech to which I should have liked to refer, I may, with your permission, recur to it again. I am, &c, J. E. Maori Hill.