The Dominion. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1911. THE PREMIER AT ASHBURTON

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1057, 21 February 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1911. THE PREMIER AT ASHBURTON

Although the Prime Ministers speech in Ashburton last week was characteristic enough—and therefore sufficiently like the rambling stuff that ho is delivering all over the country—to excuse the summary treatment extended to it by tho Press Association', there- aro some points in it that will repay a little attention. In tho course of his disorderly rambling he strayed towards tho land question, and as Ashburton is an agricultural district, ho could not very well avoid the tenure issue. Wo give in full, as reported in his official organ in Christchuvch, his clear, precise, and statesmanlike- pronouncement of the principles which ho has dsfended for years, and in defence of which he will no doubt profess his willingness to die in tho last ditch: In regard to llto question of tenure a (treat diversity of opinion existed in' tho House of Representatives, lis had no hesitation in 1 saying that the present House could.not hope to reach a decision. Tho question of tenure could not ho settled without an agreement between the two great parties, freehold and leasehold; yet tho question of tenure was used by men who knew' the facts, as a stalking-horse, and tho result was not in tho inteiests of the. people. While Sik Joseph Ward's admirers aro applauding this magnificent profession of-".the cardinal principles of Liberalism," the rest of us, we hope, will remember to sympathise with tho occasional satirists of tho Pkime Minister, who will wisli they could have thought of inventing anything so pungent as the passago wo have quoted. The main feature of the Ashburton speech was a more than usually lengthy arid laboured attempt to defend the furious borrowing that tho Government, considers indispensable to' a country, which is described as enormously rich and unr.rcccdcntedly prosperous. It does not appear to have occurred to Sir Joseph Ward that the worst timo in the world for insisting on tho imperative necessity for borrowing is a timo when, largely owing to_ an increase in the already high direct and indirect taxation, the revenue is enormous. If the country is sound at heart—asMvc arc, sure'it is—and extraordinarily prosperous, and_ if at the same time enormous taxation and enormous borrowing are necessary, it surely follows at once that it is being grossly mismanaged. The PniiiE Minister "knows that this is true, and ho seeks, therefore, to delude a section of tho pcoplo by diverting their attention in every possible way from tho fact that modprate taxation . and moderate borrowing would bo compatible' with great and real progress if tho axe were laid at the root of tho extravagance and vicious methods that have grown 1 up under tho "Liberal' 1 administration. He quoted some figures at Ashburtdn. relating to the. money borrowed for advances' to settlers, workers, and local authorities, and proceeded, according to his Christchurch mouthpiece, to misrepresent some recent observations of our own, attributing them, with characteristic inaccuracy, to the Auckland Herald. Here is this part of his speech: Tho Auckland "Herald," the mouthpiece of tho Opposition, recently stated, in reply to hisnuestion os to which portion of tho recent .£5,000,000 loan tho Opposition advocated should hav'o been dropped:—"Wo shall tell him: all of it rjivo tho .£1,250,090 for the Dreadnought." In that loan was included .C2,0Q0,000 for advances to settlers and workers. The Opposition newspaper therefore said it would stop tho Government borrowing that money. . . . Of.tho loan, .£1,750,000 was for carrying on public works and tor purchasing land to put .men and women on. The Opposition press F.iid they would not borrow money for either of these purposes. Wo should be insulting the intelligence of tho Piu-me Minister if wo believed that ho was ignorant that Lo'was glaringly misrepresenting the facts. ■ His appeal was to "his critics," and, as one of his critics, wo took up his challenge, and showed that if he had been ordinarily prudent ho would havo saved up during his term of office more than enough for tho purposes for which ho floated this particular loan. Wo showed that if ho had not allowed the Departmental expenditure to rise above the high figure (£4,252,233 per annum)- at which Ma. Seddox Icft it—it was £5,470,513 in 1909-10, and will be about £5,750,000 for the .current year—ho would have had in liand no less a sum than £5,362,981. "Had he not wasted tho greater part of this vast suni of money," wo added, "he would not have had to raise the big loan at all." Wo wish that ho would quote those facts next time he refers to tho matter, but of course he dare not. His caso is such that he cannot afford candour. . Very characteristic indeed was his glance nt the charge of extravagance. Ho did not go into tho question at all. i Ho merely asked-: "Could any of his hearers point to any examples of Government extravagance in their own-town] Ho had noted (sic) that question everywhere in tho North Island," ho added. "Ashburton still wanted a good deal of expenditure on public conveniences. If they wanted no more borrowing they must step their demands." Tho ingenuity of this appeal to local cupidity requires no largo demonstration, and it is well to have so clear a statement of the debased policy of the Government. Were he a sttident of'politics in other lands, the Puijie Minister would know that this appeal to Ashburton is the embodiment of that demagogy which has been condemned from the days of AnisTOi'HANES, who ihadc. Ci.eon nn object of contempt for all ages, tu the present time, when, in countries so dissimilar as France ;uid America, statesmen as dissimilar as Mr. Tai'T and M. Biuand aro condemning the appeal to parochial interests as one of the most serious dangers - to good government. He could rely, however, upon his audience's ignorance of cither Aristophanes or Ml:. Tai-t, and its seems, also, that he was able to rely upon their forgctfulncss of the principles of Mr. Ram.anci:. For ho repeated his assertion that if the Government did not borrow huge sums "thousands of tho bone and sinew would leave it." And Me. Ballance aekeel

in his 1891 Budget: "Does it not show that tho method of carrying out public works has been radically vicious, when they no sooner cease than those engaged on them are compelled to emigrate ?" Does the successor of Ballancs caro to answer that question ? The fact is, of course, that tho Prime Minister has violated, nay, utterly cast away, nil the principles of Ballance. He knows that he cannot justify his enormous borrowing; that ho cannot-reconcile tho high revenue and increased taxation and heavy borrowing with the two theories, that the country is sound and prosperous, and that it is well-governed.- In the face of the facts both theories cannot be true, and however tho PimiE Minister may endeavour to obscure the facts, the public will soon decide which theory must be rejected.