The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1890.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 2539, 2 December 1890, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1890.

Before our next issue reaches some of our readers, they will have been called upon to record their votes for the election of a representative for Waipawa. We therefore take this opportunity of drawing attention to any points of difference in the character and policy of the candidates, leaving out of consideration those matters in which they are in accord. There are on the electoral roll 3493 names, but of these 393 have been now struck off. 105 other objections were made, but the letters have not been returned. It does not follow, however, that the parties to whom they were addressed are in the district, seeing that anyone who claimed the right to receive the letters, and signed for them, would get them. There are, besides these, probably 200 other dummies not yet objected to. The roll number of bond fule electors will thus be reduced to about 2,800, and we hope and expect that at least 2,600 will record their votes. It is every man’s duty to vote, and to vote according to his conviction as to what is best for the country. Some people’s maxim is to leave politics to the politicians. That may he all very well, so far as regards active canvassing ; but professional politicians, regarded as a class, are not the cream of the community, and there has been hitherto a tendency on the part of the best men to stick to their own business, leaving public business alone. It is our duty, at this juncture, to declare most emphatically that the public business is everybody’s business. The pressure of taxation, however equitably adjusted, is now so heavy, and the functions of government are being so rapidly enlarged, and bid further to be further enlarged, that it would pay everybody to devote a considerable portion of his time to the public service in order that the country may be wisely and well governed. Surely, therefore, no one will shrink from sacrificing a day’s work, if necessary, once in three years in the choice of a representative. Mr Smith appears before the electors with nine years’ Parliamentary experience, and, as his supporters aver, with a well-deserved reputation for good works. We have published faithfully what he claimed for himself in this respect, but can only find that he stuck to his party, the Bat.lance party, through evil report and good report. As for any special services rendered to his constituents, he has not put forward any claim, therefore there is nothing to be replied to. We may safely affirm, however, that Mr Smith has never secured anything for his constituents which had not been previously decided on, though sometimes, by a timely question from “ information received,” he contrived to take credit for something which would have been granted without any such effort on his part. It would be far •easier to point to things which he has not done. He was going to “ burst up the big estates,” but they are as compact and solid as they were nine years ago. 11« was going to impose a land tax and take off duties on necessaries of life; but he supported his party in their policy of perpetuating the property tax and increasing customs duties. He was a supporter of secular education—until now, when he wants the Catholic vote. The interests of Woodville were his especial care- —until he decided to stand for Waipawa, and wanted the Danevirke votes, when, of course, the superior claims of Danevirke to b« the railway terminus became manifest to him. We except from this enumeration of Mr Smith’s acts and omissions, anything which he may have done as a member of any local body. Whatever he has done in that way he has been paid for, whilst other members have given their services gratuitously. Local services may weigh with a section of the electors, but other qualifications, which Mr Smith has not, are required to give him any weight,in the House. There, even among his own party, his nine years’ experience has not given him a front position. Mr Smith is simply a faithful follower of Mr Bappancf, ; and it would only be repeating a thrice-toJ.d tale to point out Mr Bai.i.ancb’s failure ass an administrator. His party is fast melting away : and, whatever changes or re-construc-tions may take place, it is improbable that he will again take a prominent part in the government of the country. Even according to Mr Smith, Mr Ballanck has at last admitted that

his village settlement scheme is a mistake, and will advocate an enlargement of the areas of holdings, thus placing himself in accord with Mr Huntke’s declared land policy. .Mr Smith still talks wildly about bursting up the big estates. We would just ask the electors what reason there is to expect that, if returned, he wjnld be more successful than in the past. We freely admit the undesirableness of the land being held in large areas and of the growth of the towns at the expense of the country districts. It would also be much better if, wealth in other forms, as well as l&nd, were more evenly distributed. An ideal state of society would be that where every man lived under his own vine and his own figtree, even if it involved the surrender of many conveniences and luxuries enjoyed by dwellers in cities. But though BOciety now regards as a truism the assertion that “ you cannot make a man sober by Act of Parliament,” it still cherishes the notion that it can control the distribqtion of wealth by means of taxation. Any reflecting elector will not need to be reminded, that without some security for the possession of wealth, it will cease to be produced. If, therefore, the electors entrust the government of the country to men who will levy taxes, not solely for the purposes of revenue and public expenditure, but also to expropriate land-owners without fair compensation, they will speedily drive away capital, raise the rate of interest, and thus diminish the wages fund and reduce the rate of wages. Even then they would fail to effect their object; for it is certain that, even if the House of Representatives passed a ** bursting up ” measure, it would never receive the Royal assent. History repeats itself. A similar cry was popular in Victoria many years ago, under the Beery regime. That colony had reason to repent bitterly. There is no reason to expect a different issue in our own case. The causes which led to the formation of large estates are still in operation. We have only to look through the Makaretu, Blackburn, and Woodville districts to witness a rapid enlargement of holdings, and the reason is obvious to anyone who studies the matter. It arises in some measure from the greater conveniences on the larger properties, thus diminishing the ratio of expenses to gross returns ; but the chief cause is the great difference in the rate of interest on mortgage of small as compared with large properties. The large landowner borrows at 5 or G per cent, whilst the settler on a 40acre section frequently pays 12£ per cent. So long as the latter continues to work his holding with his own capital, he is safe ; but when once unforeseen circumstances or improvident habits force him to mortgage his farm, his ruin is only a question of time. It is a well known fact, notwithstanding all the claptrap about “ wool kings,” that the returns from investment in land, whether worked in large or 6mall holdings, do not exceed, on the average, 5 per cent. It is plain, therefore, that a small settler who is paying 10 or 12 per cent on a mortgage to half the value of his holding, is virtually a serf to the mortgagee. Any policy which tends to drive away capital raises the rate of interest, and thus renders the small settlor’s lot still harder. There are many whose mortgages will soon fall in, and must be renewed. What will be their position if the mortgagees will not renew the loans, except on ruinous terms ? Like the price of consols in England, the value of New Zealand bonds is a true index to the state of our money market. If a “ Liberal ” Ministry be replaced in power, then will the credit of the colony again fall as it did during the reign of Stout, Vogel, and Ballanue, and the small settler will bo the first to feel the pinch. The one essential difference between the policy of Mr Smith, as compared with that of Mr Hunter, is that, though both advocate a land tax on the “ unimproved value,” the former aims also at ‘ f bursting up ” big estates by this means, whilst the latter regards it only as a source of revenue. The true remedy is to inculcate in our population a taste for rural life, and thus draw the people away from the allurements of the towns. Our difficulty is still, not to find land for settlers, but to find settlers for the land. In the present contrast, there is really no other important matter to be stated : those who, despite the warnings of experieuce, still cherish the bursting up theory, will cast their votes for Mr Smith on Friday next ; those, on the other hand, who believe that “ unity is strength,” who aim at directing all our forces towards the goal of true progress instead of perpetuating class divisions and antagonisms, will record their votes on behalf of Mr Hunter. The Young New Zealand Party, the party whose hopes and aspirations are centred in the land of their birth, is steadily growing, and will soon displace the worn-ont and effete politicians imbued with the traditions of another land. Of that party Mr Hunter will prove a not unworthy member. The first colonists were useful and energetic pioneers. But what was their prevailing desire ? Why, to “ make a pile,” and go home to England to spend it! Many have done so, and we want no more absentees. This* colony has been too long treated like a milch cow : we want representatives who regard it as their permanent home.

Further examination of Mr Smith’s record shows that lie has received a very substantial quid pro quo whereever he has devoted his valuable time or services to any good works. True, this reward might not always take the form of filthy lucre, but gratitude for services rendered, and a lively anticipation of favours to come, may be exhibited In a variety of forms. Let us just take the case of a recipient of charitable aid, whilst it was administered by Mr Smith, before the scandals became so grave as to necessitate the formation of the United Charitable Aid Board. We quote the report of Sergt. as follows : 1 " I beg to report that Mrs Ann Hyland became a widow last January. She is 41 years old, and a hardworking woman in strong lioalth. She has four children— May, 10 years, a fully grown

young woman ; John, 13 years old, a young man in appearance (who with their mother do all the work of the farm without difficulty) ; and Charles, 11 years old ; and Daisy, 7 years old. The family is strong and healthy. Mrs Hyland owes nothing at all. She owns 190 acres of well improved land, fenced, and grassed over more than half, with good house, plenty of rough furniture, a reproductive garden well fenced and worked, six cows with calves at foot, 100 sheep and 40 lambs, a horse and cart and harness, and owes for the land, which is on the deferred payment system, four payments of £l9 each. In all her liabilities are £76. Her farm and garden are paying, and I estimate her to be worth at the lowest £I2OO should she realize now. She has no relations in the county to assist her.” Here is a nice dispenser of charitable aid, truly. Why, by Mr Smith’s own admission, as reported in the Herald , October, 1887, he said, “ho had as a rule three or four swaggers a day come to him wanting shillings, or half-crowns, or pairs of boots.” It is simply scandalous that a candidate for parliamentary honors should have had such uncontrolled distribution of charitable aid. No wonder that some people have such undying faith in Mr Smith’s good works.

vTHE WAIKOPIRO BLOCK AND MR SMITH. This morning’s Herald contains the following remarkable revelation regarding Mr Smith and the celebrated Waikopiro Block. Has the man who has posed as a public benefactor, who has got up petitions to the Government to open this block for settlement, and traded on the political capital which he has made out of his alleged efforts, all the time been trying to secure the block for himself? We have ascertained the following additional particulars :—Mr Grant, Mr Smith’s father-in-law, tried to purchase the totara timber in front of his mill at Ormondville from the natives. The natives replied that they would not deal for the timber, but would sell all together in one lot. Mr Grant replied that would require too much money. Hence Mr Smith’s offer of £IOOO afterwards. Further comment is needless, and we simply quote the Herald :— “We have received a communication signed by Tangauu Tumi a, Hi KARA Tuhua, and Patu Tuhua, which, if it be a correct statement of fact, puts a curious aspect on another of Mr Smith’s public professions of anxiety to secure native land for settlement. He is just now travelling the country abusing, in his customary refined manner, the Government for not immediately acquiring the Waikopiro block, which certainly is exceptionally adapted for cutting up into small farms. It is splendid land, carries good timber, and is near the railway. Now has Mr Smith been acting a double-faced part in this also, and, while telling how lie lias urged the Government to buy the block, is he witholding other information to the effect that he was endoavoring to get the block for himself at the very time when he represents himself as urging the Government to buy ? The three natives who write to us say he was. Here is their letter as translated:—

Waipawa, Dec. Ist, 1890. I, Tangaru Tuhua, met Smith, member of Parliament, at Waipukurau, in the, month of August, or thereabouts. lie asked me to speak to my brothers and sell him our interest in the Waikopiro block,*| and that from documents lie saw at the House of Parliament he was quite sura that we would win our caße at the re-hearing of the Waikopiro block at the Land Court, Waipawa, and that we were to sell our shares to him, and he would pay to us n sum of money before the Court sat. My brother, Patu Tuhua, told me that he had a conversation with Smith, and Smith would pay £IOOO if we would agree to sell him (Smith) Waikopiro, or our interest therein, and he would pay the £IOOO before the Court commenced. This is what my brother said to me, also to lliraka Tuhua. My brothers will Bubscribe their names to this, knowing the same to be true. —(Signed) Tangaru Tuhua, Hiraka Tuhua, Patu Tuhua.