SEDDON MEMORIALS

Observer, Volume XXVI, Issue 45, 28 July 1906, Page 2

SEDDON MEMORIALS

Let the Other Fellow Pay.

WHAT is really the measure of our gratitude to the late Bight Hod. K. J. Seddon, who was such a benefactor to the people of New Zealand, and who sacrificed his life in their service ? There have been marvellous outpourings of sympathy, and ostentatious displays of ioral tributes, and patriotic proposals that the Stats should present the widow with a mansion and £30,000, and other pro* posals that the local bodies should paj for memorials out of the rates. But what about the people themselvr s, who benefited so materially by Mr Seddon's strenuous work of statesmanship ? What are they doing personally t« demonstrate their gratitude and creat* a fitting memorial to the great man's memory ? As far as we can see, they are doing nothing. They are prepared to display the utmost generosity in pay id g tribute to Mr Seddon and hi* work, so long as the money is provided by the State, and doesn't come directly out of their own pockets.

What better illustration of our argument ran be found than the technical school proposal fathered at th« Devonport Borough Council meeting last week by such whole-souled patriot* as Messrs Timewell, Osborne, and McLean ? This idea, which originated in the Finance Committee, was that a rate should be levied upon the property-owners of the borough to equip and maintain a techniral school as a memorial to the late Mr Seddon. Apart altogether from any question of the desirableness or otherwise of a technical school at Devonport, there is a delightful irony in the proposal to shoulder on to the property-owners th« cost of this memorial. Why the property-owners solely? If there is one class of people in the colony more than another that has no special reason to be grateful to Mr Seddon, it i* the property-owners, because ths whole of his legislation has been framed against property and for the benefit of the people who have no property. We do not blame him for this. On the contrary, we think much credit was due to him for championing the cause of the masses against the classes.

But in view of the obvious fact that the property-owners were penalized by Mr Seddon'B legislation, and had no reason for gratitude to him, the attempt to saddle them exclusively with the cost of a memorial is, to put the thing mildly, grossly indecent. It is alßo a sordid attempt on the part of the people who believed in Mr Seddon's legislation, and benefited by it, to shuffle out of their responsibilities and place them on the shoulders of another class that recognises no responsibility and is not bound by any considerations of gratitude. But Devonport is not alone in this respect. The same thing is happening in every city, town and village in the country. When Seddon was alive, we shouted ourselves hoarse in his honour. Now that Seddon is dead, the people for whom he laboured are prepared to create memorials to him if somebody else finds the money.

There is another indecent phase in this Devonporb proposal If tb« borough can bear additional taxation, and probably it can, it ought to promptly tax itself in order to liquidate its debts before it talks of technical schools and other similar luxuries. At the present time, it has an overdraft of something like £4,500, which is equal to the whole of about three years' general revenue. Why doesn't the Devonport Borough Council set to work to wipe oft this indebtedness before it talks glibly of taking on further and wholly unnecessary liabilities ? It certainly would be sound business to wipe out some part of the existing debt before incurring any more. In any case, if Devonport wants to establish a memorial to the late Premier, the people as a whole ought to put their hands in their pockets and pay the cost, and not attempt, by a misuse of the rating law, to tax the property- owners, and

them alone, for a purpose with which they have only the same amount of sympathy as the ordinary citizen, and for which they should not be asked to pay the whole cost.