The Evening Star FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2623, 14 July 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1871.

Mr Heid’s pugnacity is most amusing. He is perpetually lighting with some imaginary enemy. Last evening but one he stood up like a Bantam cock, and set up a crow of defiance against

the Daily Times and tKe Evening Star. He told his obsequious toadies he did not care for the opinions expressed by those . journals, and his obsequious toadies no doubt felt much encouraged in their misdeeds by the bounce of their word-valiant leader. So far as we are concerned, we have felt very indifferent as to the course Mr Reid has thought fit to pursue on those resolutions which have served to amuse his party in the House ; but which will undergo a thorough sifting and examination in the Colonial Parliament. We have been, however, occasionally amused by the flimsy logic by which he excuses to others, if not to himself, the votes he gives. Mr Gutter truly said that in the Council the logic was not always sound, nor the grammatical construction of the resolutions passed, of the best. As an instance, when Mr Reid opposed Mr Haughtox’s amendment, expressing the opinion that no more Middle Island revenue should be wasted “ on the Maoris,” he did so on the ground that if that resolution were carried, it would justify the waste of revenue on some other object. Before Mr Reid goes to Wellington, we recommend him to take a few lessons in logic from Professor Macgkegor. Then yesterday, still haunted by the demon of the press, he set up a fight for the farmers. His text was, It is the fashion of the press to charge the farmers with selfishness. At once Goliah was brought before the host of the Israelites and dapper little David made ready his sling to slay him. The stone was too soft however, or the arm was too weak ; for the very plan he took to show bucolic philanthropy only the more revealed its grasping. We do not know that others are less selfish than fanners, but they have at any rate the wisdom not to show it. What the press says of the farmers is, that they are always seeking for privileges denied to, or at the expense of, those engaged in other occupations. So for as the last exhibition of this settled practice is concerned, we quite conincide with the desirability of the drainage of land for agricultural purposes. But when it is attempted to be shown that a portion of a loan voted for strictly public purposes should be diverted to this end, we object to it on the ground that, however, ultimately, the public might be benefitted by the increased production by the soil, the priraaiy object is individual profit at the public expence. The case really stands thus : For the construction of railroads or other public works—such as jetties, docks, and bridges—a loan has been, or is to be, negotiated on the security of the Colony ; and in consequence of that security, the money is obtainable at or about five per cent In the outlay of this money none will benefit more than the farmers themselves. Those who bought land for a pound an acre, with the addition of some years of grazing privileges over Hundreds, will have the value of their property enormously increased by improved means of transport; and thus they will reap the lion’s share of the common benefit. The public will not grudge them this, fox', though in a loss propoi’tionate ratio, every one will reap advantage from a railway system. But when a portion of this loan, obtained at a low rate of interest, is sought to be diverted to the special profit of a class, we ask for a reason why a farmer should be able to borrow at five per cent, on Colonial security, and a mexcitant or tradesman be left out in the cold, and have to pay eight, ten, or twelve per cent, for advances. Mr Bathgate need not have prosed about the Lothians, and how the Southerners were astonished at the results of Scotch farming. He mistakes altogether if he supposes that English farmers arc less intelligent than Scotch. The simple reasoxi of the greater advance in Scotland was that the Lothian farmers were leaseholders, and the English mostly tenants at will. Where English farmers till their own land, they know how to apply science to agricultux’e as well as' their Northern neighbors, and pay the cost of improvement oxxt of their own pockets. Nor is there any analogy between the condition of farmers here autj at Home. In Great Britain, for years the farmer's had had a monopoly under legislative authority, and had some claim to eonsidci'dtion through being deprived of what might be considered vested rights. But no such claim can bo set up here. Wc do not wish it to be understood that avo Avant to throw impediments in the way of improvements; but if the legislature is to become the guarantor for the payment of debts incurred for land drainage by farmers, the Government, in justice, should set, up at once as a gigantic mont de pieie, so that every man avlxo had freehold security to offer should borroAV on the same advantageous terms. Unless Mr Reid is prepared to go to that extent, he has taken an odd Avay of shoAviug that by attidbuting selfishness to fanners, the pi'ess does them injustice.