The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3620, 17 February 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1883.

Sixce the representatives of the old " Continuous Ministry " have been in office the bonds of centralism have been drawn tighter till local government has become but a liprure of speeuli- At every turn local bodies find that nothing- can be "done without an appeal to the central authorities. The central government is the supreme power in everything, and the aim of the Ministry has been and continues to be to absorb all authority, and to rule the country by favor. This object has become all the easier of attainment by the central government assuming the control of the purse. Thus local bodies can bo starved into submission. Mr Hutchison, in the debate on the EoacLs find Bridges Construction .Bill, stood up boldly to oppose a measure that made the State a systematic money-lender. The aim of the Legislature, lie said, should be to render the local bodies independent in their own sphere. Since the Bill became law we know that it has operated in an entirely opposite direction. It has made local bodies not only dependent upon but subservient to the Government of the day. Mr Hutchison predicted that the measure would have that effect, and his words have become literally fulfilled. He remarked that the colony would never have_ a thoroughly independent Parliament until it got a thoroughly independent local government—until members are conclusively delivered from the degradation of haunting the offices of Ministers, seeking as a sort of personal favor for public money for this road or that bridge. In the clays of provincialism we had an independent Parliament, for the reason that the colony enjoyed the most perfect system of local govemment that was ever devised. But that system was found to be inconsistent with the establishment of a bureaucracy at Wellington, and the flooding- of the country with an army of travelling and residential civil servants. The days of independence have long since passed away, and with them the power of localities to help themselves. If a road or bridge is now wanted, if a hospital has to be maintained, if a small farm-settler wants assistance, if a public library requires its funds augmented, if a destitute family wants bread, application must bo made to the Government. And to be a successful applicant the application must be couched in the most submisssve language, or the appeal will receive no attention. We have had an example of this in the reply of the Hon. Mr Dick to Mr Sutton, M.H.R., when that gentleman demanded in strong terms that common justice should bo done to the Napier Hospital. Mr pick could not tako notice of three communications on the subject on account of the language in which they were couched. If Mr Sutton had .cs.awled and cringed before the majesty of the puree t small pittance might have been doled out to meet the pressing wants of the hour. Mr Hutchison contended that the State should iu)t be a money-lender, for in reality it has j no money to lend. He said '' the reasoning is irresistible ftuqtt, after all, it is their own money tlie ratepayers spend, and the benefits received from it are public benefits. Theso facts therefore lead us to ihe concluKion that local loans should be negotiated in the open market of the colony on the security of rates specially voted for the purpose. The ratepayers will hare to pay a

slightly higher rate of interest for the money: that is all. And that ' all' is more than compensated for by the self-reliance of such a policy, by the emancipation of members of the House from ' booing' to tho Government, and by the greater care and circumspection that will be exercised iv the expenditure of money so borrowed. I do not suppose that anything I may say on this point is likely to influence the members of this House, but probably the opinion of the leading statesman of the United Kingdom may lead some of my friends to pause. Last year, in the House of Commons, Mr Gladstone, speaking of the borrowing of money by local bodies in tho open market, is reported to have said, —" It will confer a much stronger sense of responsibility, and secure a much closer attention, than would be the case under the slippery and perilous idea that they could go to a central source to borrow and draw upon the nation." Following on Mr Hutchison, Mr Macandrcw said tho Bill struck at the root of every principle of selfreliance, and it stereotyped what he called the system of "grab"—a system utterly subversive of good government, and under which it is impossible that there can be good government in this colony. However, as our readers are aware, the House by a large majority passed the measure, and all the evils that it was said it would bring upon the country have come to pass.