THE DAILY TIMES AND SIR DAVID MONRO.

Evening Star, Issue 3141, 14 March 1873, Page 2

THE DAILY TIMES AND SIR DAVID MONRO.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I have read the leader in the Daily Times of this morning with some surprise, and regret its tone. The usual tune on the harp, that the country is going to grief, and that it is being ruined, seems to have settled down into a morbid state in tlie brain of your contemporary, aud, like Sir David, he may be dubbed by the appellation of “ croaker,’ or like “ that ill bird that ’tiles its ain nest,” to use a homely Scottish proverb. The article \L trust, not intentionally) has a tendency to mislead and gull the public ; aud this 1 shall endeavor to shew before I am done. The praise and glorification of Sir David Monro, is, to my mind, and all 1 have spoken to, of the most fulsome kind ; there is just a great deal too much of the soit soap element in it. As a gentleman, and genial man, Bir David Monro h-s de-ervedly our praise, and his conduct as Speaker of the Assembly (leaving out the “ clock” blemish), was such, that it would be beneficial if tde present occupant would take a leaf out of Sir David’s book, in the conducting of business. But as a politician, and one who has done great things for the country, I ask, what has he done to nuke “Otago proud, and Waikouaili prouder still,” of one such representative ? Is he a man of progress ? I fail to see it. He told the Waikouaiti electors, the other day, that he was not against railways, and instanced the astounding fact, that he had to do with the formation of the Dun Mountain Railway, which led to the top of a mountain, and there stopped; but the money spent was foreign capital—not his. He was also in favor of a line from Blenheim to Picton, but which (he takes care to tell) Mr Fox iccommcnded should not be constructed, but does not enlighten ns, one way or other, what would have been the cost, and what requirements this lino would have filled up.—Marlborough Province, being mainly a sheep-walk, in the hands of a select number of squatters, of whom, it has been said, that they parcelled out the country at about five shillings per acre, utterly destroying that Province as a field for settlement. However fond Sir David may be of the Blenheim and Dun Mountain railways, he is no believer in a comprehensive aud general scheme of railways for the country. It is time enough for that—the roads, in the form of nature, with some patching of culverts, are good enough for all present purposes. This doctriue may do for sheep farms, but agriculturists require something more to take their produce cheaply to market. The truth must come out: Sir David is half a century behind the age ; and his visions of the requirements of the country —if we are to keep pace with other countries in the race of life— have been sadly darkened. Has his personal enmity to Messrs. Fox and Vogel, like that of the Times, anything to do with it ? The worthy Sir David has ridden his hobby—the public works scheme—to death, in his utterances, both in and out of Parliament; aud it is a pity that Sir David should be allowed a “ walk-over” the course, in sporting phraseology. In proof of his opposition to a comprehensive railway scheme for the country, I would just instance his address to the electors of Waikouaiti, some twelve months ago, as reported in the paper of that place. D e says, ‘ ‘ Meanwhile, I will only say, that I regard the policy of the Government as useless, extravagant, and unstatesman like, and in pursuit of very doubtful advantages. The whole country is threatened with a ruinous amount of taxation.” And why not tax five shilling an acre land ? “I should seek to arrest this fatal policy.” And further, in his place in the Assembly, he said, “Ido not propose to discuss the merits of the great policy of 1870. I recognise it now as an accepted fact. Wc have taken a leap in the dark. We have made one plunge, and we are now in the rapids of .Niagara. The country has gone too far to recede ; and greatly as 1 mistrust the scheme, aud much as I believe that we shall come out of it heavy losers, still, neither I, nor those who agree with me, would ever council the country to go back from it now." Why not, if the country is to be a heavy loser ? I fear, Sir David is a little wavering in his faith, notwithstanding his array of indebtedness blazoned before our eyes iu the columns of the Times. We are told our indebtedness, General and Provincial, funded and unfunded, had increased in five years from L 5,781,193 to L 10,160,000; but we are not told how a large portion of this was created by the Maori wars, under Stafford's regime, nor how much has been expended in the formation of railways. We are not told that railways are productive iVorks, both directly and indirectly. v\ e do not build houses unless wc expect tenants ; nor do we invest monies in any way without an expected return. JN'o ! we are shown by this misleading article, that the annual amount payable for interest and sinking fund is L61G,570, in the gross, but wc arc not shewn what is payable in interest, and what is paid to the sinking fund, which latter is just a yearly paying off of the debt, as those who have taken advantage of building societies will clearly understand. Then we are shewn that our revenue from Customs is only L 513,279, to meet interest and sinking fund. But when do we notice any return from railways ? Is there to be no return directly in the shape of profits over working expenses ? Are railways, such as the Clutha line, to be a dead loss and burden on our Customs Revenue ? Is no indirect advantage to be gained by enabling outlying Colonists to briugtheir agricultural, ahd other productions, cheaply to a market? If we want the country hermetically sealed, except to the woollen-aristocracy, then do not have railways. This is, however, what we do not want. We want the country opened up for settlement. We want industries started ; aud, besides all, we want an everflowing and steady stream of immigration of an industrious class, such as we had flowing in in the years gone by. But I will spare your readers going much further* into the details of this most curious confession of faith. The ’ future, ive are tbld,

has its “ coming obligations”—a truism which it would be well if the milk-and-water writers iu the Times would grapple with. Why always croaking ? More railways will rcquired, and, of course, more money, which must be borrowed to make them, and so more interest to pay. But if we do a good trade, can we not afford to do it ? Can we make roads, build docks, out of ordinary revenue ? —and surely railways are more important. When all the railways are made, and the gaps filled up—such as the Clutha and Mataura line, the Dunedin and Moeraki line, which, by-the-bye, I notice Sir David has pledged himself to support-our worthy Editor shews that we shall be owing seventeen millions, with an interest charge of L 1,020,200, and finishes off with saying “If such be the case, then we must agree with Sir David, that ‘ the prospects of the country are truly alarming.’ ” 1 ask again, will you, the writer in the Daily Times, who may be a veritable Spiritualist, will you give us no credit for traffic on railways ? Will you give us no credit for additional Customs revenue, from an increasing and prosperous community ? Will you insist upon it. “ that we have only to look forward to the future as the counterpart of the past ?” Woe’s me ! that we have such empty-headed journalists in the wouldbe leading paper of the Colony. New Zealand going to ruin—pshaw ! It is only in its infancy ; and only requires fostering, and developing its resources, to make it literally the Britain of the South. —I am. &c.,

An Old Colonist.

Dunedin, March 13,