STATE NOTES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1240, 23 September 1911, Page 14

STATE NOTES.

Sir,—l was somowhat amused, if not altogether surprised, on reading this morning's Dominion, to see the shuffle tho Prime Minister adopted in winding up tho debate on tho Financial Statement, when ho dealt with the State Note proposal. Talking of Mr. A. W. Hogg's retirement from llie Cabinet, ho now credits this to Mr. Hogg's reply to a deputation at Wanganui, and not to his utterances in the House during the short session of tiro years ago. Now at' the time, the Primo Minister contented himself with glossing over the Wlanganui reply by stating that Mr. remarks did not express tho views of the Ministry, .and .with that the matter was evidently dropped. Then came tho member for Masterlon|s sudden outburst in tha House, in which he advocated the adoption of the Canadian scheme. This was tho immediate cause of the trouble, for as soon as the member for Mastorton resumed his seat, a certain Canterbury Government member was seen to_ rush down to the Prime Minister and evidently commence protesting to his chief. When Sir Joseph Ward requested Mr. Hogg to retire, he, I believe, gave as one of tho reasons that some members of tho party thought Mr. Hogg had gone too far, and in this evidently the Prime Minister concurred. This, however, is not to be wondered at, wlicn one recollects what a past-master the Prime Minister is in avoiding expressing a definite opinion on progressive measures. The Canterbury member, mentioned before, is one who is commonly supposed to have rather Radical tendencies, but, like tho Prime Minister, he -takes line care to only let himself go on delicate matters after other members havo set him a lead. Reverting to tho Wanganui remarks of Mr. Hogg I think perusal of tho Wanganui papers will show that Mr. Hogg at tho time distinctly stated to the deputation that his opinions were personal ones and had not been given by him as a member of the Cabinet. Why docs not "the Prime Minister come forward and say that he is now convinced that Mr. Hogg's desire for the adoption of the Canadian scheme was a commQndablo ono, and that ho himself has seen the error of his ways and has become converted? Or, if his assertion that ho (Sir Joseph Ward) himself, in 1801, wished the Canadian scheme to bo adopted hero is correct, why did lie not have the straightforwardness in 1009 to have said so? The only solution to this question is seemingly that he changed his opinion between 1894 and 1900, .and then changed back again between 1909 and 1911. I fully expect to witness shortly the amazing (?) spr-ctacle of seeing tho aforesaid Canterbury member voting in favour of State Notes, despite his protest to tho Trime Minister in 1909. It would not be the first time this gentleman has executed n .volte.fr.ee. It is rather regrettable that Mr. Hcgg was absent from the Financial Debate, as he could possibly have provided the public with some idea of what really passed between himself and the Prime Minister regarding his Wellington and Wanganui utterances. I notice the Prime Minister again let. go the usual "personal regard" soft-soap.

Now, sir, perhaps you, being_ so high in the regard of the Prime Minister, can ascertain from him exactly where lie personally stood regarding State Notes in 1.5109, and also whether it was Mr. Hogg's Wanganui or Wellington sprech that was responsible for his retirement. Or perhaps it was the disapprobation of the southern Radical that caused t'lie rift. Thanking you in anticipation for the insertion of this,—l am, etc.. DUBIOUS.

Sir—Wonders will never cease. Fancy the Ward Government going to introduce legislation to mako tho issuo of paper money a State monopoly. Where does Mr. Ilogg come in? Surely Sir Joseph Ward has forgotten tho whys and tho wherefores of Mr. Hogg's resignation from tho Ministry. But I say more power to Mr. Hogg and all those men who havo been agitating for years for the State to havo the monopoly of the issue of the paper money, for it is high time that ths taxpayers of this country should receive the benefits of _ t'lio profits that accrue from the issue of paper m'oney, or in other words, it is high timo that the taxpayers of this country undertook to borrow for thomselves, by having the monopoly of a convertible paper currency to be issued for developing the resources of this Dominion, and henceforth to discontinue tho practice of trotting to the money-lenders of London for oiir medium of exchange. Now, if I am rightly informed, I believe that there is fully a million and a half of money yearly thai goes into the pocket's of private individuals, through tho private monopoly of paper money that is now in circulation in this Dominion. There is no necessity for the Government of any country to ■sell their lands for the. purpose of raising money to carry on the work of the State, although Massey is trying to ram this aforementioned assertion down people's throats. No doubt this freehold transaction suits the land gamblers of this country all. right, but it is death to bona-fide settlement, for, every time tho land changes hands, it goes up in price, and that means that in the end the land

users of this country will all be bound slaves of tho money-lender. Mr. Editor, I have slightly run" away from tho argument I started on, but I want to point out that it is not necessary for any Government' or let I lie herilago of t'ho people fall into tho hands of the land .gamblers any moro ilian it is necessary for a Government to go to tho. Iforoign moneylender—that is, if that Government.will only hold the monopoly of tho paper money issue, and I trust that' the workers of this country will shortly demand that the pap?r money issuo shall bo a State monopoly, and let' it, bo a convertible currency, ami lot the workers at election time not forget those candidates who have always agitated for this paper money scheme to bo run by the State. Yes, let t'ho workers give credit where credit is due; stick to those candidates who have always stood staunch to the cause of democracy. Take no notice of the gentlemen who spring up at t'he last moment styling themselves as belonging to the Reform party. The reform they will give you is to doubly lock up tho land from the workers under the guise of what' they have the hardihood to call freehold.—l am, etc., CIIAELES SMITH. Waihoki Valley.