PUBLIC OPINION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10538, 13 August 1912, Page 3

PUBLIC OPINION.

FROM YESTERDAY'S NEWSPAPERS. (By Telegraph.) THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. The reply of the Minister of Customs was not much superior in tone and temper to Mr Russell's attack. It is described as "a fine fighting speech," but are fighting speeches wanted just now, fine or otherwise? Some allowance must be made for provocation, but Mr Fisher would have displayed more dignity for his own part as well as shrewder practical wisdom on the part of the Government if he had refrained from employing the recriminative method. Like Mr Russell, he laid himself open to a pointed reminder that Parliament has to deal with the present, not with the past, and his exposition of the Government's administrative principles gained nothing in effect by being a-seociated with bitter retrospective criticism.—Dunedin " Star." THE GRADUATED TAX.

The taunt that the preseht Government has'"stolen" the policy of its predecessor was probably to be expected, but it would be quite as correct to say that the Reform Party lias resumed the proprietary interest in proposals which had been purloined from it by its political opponents. The ono legislative proposal for which the Government seems to bo indebted to its predecessor is that for increasing the graduated tax on estates of an unimproved value of £30,000 and over. What it contemplates in this particular was suggested in the Governor's Speech at the opening of the session, yet Mr Russell, though he was a member of the Government from which, as he puts it, the proposal was " stolen," now asserts that the increase that is to be provided for is inadequate.—" Otago Daily Times." WHOSE EXPENSE? An item that appears on the estimates laid before Parliament last week by the Massey Government has provoked some inquiry and calls for explanation. It will be found under the votes for the Department of Internal Affairs and reads as follows:—"lnquiry regarding allegations of Mr J._ B. Hine, M.P., legal expenses £504." Mr Hine, when questioned on the subject, stated that the Government had not paid his legal expenses, and ho could not state what the money was voted for. Ho certainly had not received it nor had his solicitor. Who then has receivedit or is to receive this money? —".Dominion." LINES OF CLEAVAGE. What is the Opposition going to quarrel with the Government about? To the community the lines of cleavage that should exist between the parties are clear enough. These are that the Opposition should set its face against further land purchase, that tlie policy of providing "cheap, money" to others than pioneer or needy settlers should be repressed, that the ruinous taxation of families by means ov the existing tariff imposed upon necessaries should stop at once, that a thor-ough-going attempt should be made to preserve for public needs the publicly created values accruing to tlie lauds of the dominion. It should be insisted that the scheme of purchasing land for "workers' homes" is economically unsound, that the problem of the slums can no longer bo evaded, that monopolies of all kind which prey upon the national earnings should bo brought under State control or the privilege they rest upon destroyed by free competition.—"New Zealand Times.".