The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY DECEMBER, 26, 1885. Government and Opposition.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1361, 26 December 1885, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. SATURDAY DECEMBER, 26, 1885. Government and Opposition.

The Italians have a proverb to the effect that in too much controversy the truth is lost, and having read tHe speech delivered by the leader of the Opposition at Hawera last week, and the speech delivered by the Premier at Dunedin on Wednesday evening, we are driven to an appreciation of the potency of this aphorism. As we observed in the course of our first hurried review of Major Atkinson’s address, the member for Egmont confined himself almost entirely to hostile criticism of the policy and proceedings of the present Government; Mr Stout, on the other hand, told the electors of Dunedin East that everything could be best tested by comparison and that he felt it his duty to reply to the criticisms of I

the leader of the Oppositioa It is hardly possible that both these eminent statesmen are correct in their statements of facts, or justified in the conclusions they draw; it would be unfortunate for the colony, indeed, if they were. Each attempts, without venturing upon a justification of bis own conduct, to emphasize the peccability of the other. It must be remembered.

however, that the positions of the two principals in this political dissidence are somewhat dissimilar. Mr btout complains that the leader of the Opposition propounded no policy. If, he said, Major. Atkinson laid down aby broad lines of policy, or if his speech, had not consisted entirely of a criticism on the action of the Government or, of what he jjiight terra, their dispraise he would have simply dealt with that policy. No ope, in the past, bag re* oo|urasd wow foUyibw H? Stwrt tb#

the constitutional function of an Opposition is to criticise. It can hadly be expected that even the leader of the party opposed to. the Government, will proclaim an alternative policy whenever the latter determines upon some particular course of action. Such a practice, if not wholly impracticable, would be highly inconvenient and fur ther encumber what is already too cumbersome. For ourselves, while differing very widely from many of the views held by Major Atkinson, we think the Hawera address an able and states-man-like impeachment of the policy of the Government, We need not reiterate the objections we felt it our duty to make to the administration of the late Government, and we are guilty of no inconsistency in saying that we regard Major Atkinson as a useful and capable Oppositionist. No other member of the House has an equally intimate acquaintance with the finances of the colony, and, with the exception i of Sir Julius Vogel, no other New Zealand statesman has greater financial ability. But he is not only a financier, he is an indefatigable worker and possesses, that rarest of gifts, an accurate estimate of his own power. He does not imagine himself to be an orator, nor a lawyer, nor an engineer, nor an eminent social reformer; he affects no power he does not possess, but possesses no power that he does not make effective. It is Mr Stout’s duty, as the nominal head of the Government, to (propound a policy, and it is Major Atkinson’s duty, as leader of the Opposition, to criticise that policy. It would be hardly necessary, even if our space would permit of such an undertaking, for us to follow the disputations between these two statesmen with regard to the smaller details of public expenditure. We cannot, however, dismiss this part of the subject without observing that it is peculiarly unfortunate for Sir Julius Vogel that the defence of his Treasury administration was, by an unhappy accident, removed from his own to less capable hands. The important parts of the addresses we have under review are those referring to what has been designated the “ new policy ” the scheme for borrowing an additional ten millions. It may be inferred from the silence of the Colonial Treasurer that the scheme was published with his cognoisance and approval—was, in fact, put forth with a view to ascertain public opinion on the matter. We think Major Atkinson had the sympathy of every prudent colonist when he emphatically condemned this scheme. The question which suggests itself to the minds of reasonable men is, how are we to provide the additional charges involved? Major Atkinson asks this question, and thinks it probable that Sir Julius Vogel would propose to pay the interest out of loan!—a temporary expedient which might commend itself to a reckless minority in the House and country, but which, we feel sure, would never meet with the approval of sober-minded colonists. Mr Stout, on Wednesday evening, did not throw much light on this question; indeed he almost exposed himself to the charge of having deliberately evaded it. He thought, he said, that this colony in its borrowing should only borrow for those works that would give a direct return, and that they- should not pledge the credit of the colony unduly for roads and bridges. Replying to a question at the conclusion of his address, he ■ said that he would not pledge himself to the borrowing of a 10,000,000 loan. He did not think the Government should go into any wild scheme of borrowing. He thought they should see, if possible, and borrow for works that were reproductive and that would pay some interest.—These statements may or may not be evasive, they certainly are very indefinite, and might be employed with equal propriety by a friend or an opponent of the “ new policy." The time, evidently, is not yet ripe for the Government to make an avowal on this subject, but, we have no hesitation in saying, that should they determine to adopt the proposal attributed to the Colonial Treasurer, they will lose the support of many of their more prudent friends,and seriously jeopardise the future happiness, prosperity, and credit of the colony.