WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1922, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

AGRICULTURAL BANKS. NO STATE GUARANTEE. SPECIAL, TO GUARDIAN. WELLINGTON, Sept. 1. In his speech in the Budget the Hon AA - . D. Stewart made it fairly plain that the Government had no intention of either subsidising or guaranteeing the agricultural banks for which it has promised legislation during the present session. He thought the extreme length to which the Government could go would be to provide the necessary machinery to enable the farmers to do their own financing. If this should prove to he the case it will he a sad disappointment to Air AA r . J. Poison, the Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union, who was mainly instrumental i l getting the subpeet mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech and discussed in the newspapers. On the other hand, it will set at rest the minds of many business men who have been gravely alarmed at the prospect of the State standing surety for an ex|>eriment that might land the country into a loss of a million or two in its very first year. It is not likely that the mere statutory authority to establish a hank will tempt the farmers to rush precipitately into a business which requires much technical knowledge and wide experience for its successful management. THE RED FLAG.

Mr K. J. Howard, the Labour member for Christchurch South, in his contribution to the debate, strough deprecated the efforts that were being made by certain flag-waving individuals to stamp the workers in general and j their representatives in Parliament in \ particular with the brand of disloyalty, j The members of the Labour Party in I the House, lie said, had taken the oath jof allegiance to the Constitution and i , the Crown with as much sincerity as had the members of any other party, and perhaps with a better conception of its significance. AA’itli them it was not simply a matter of form nor the acceptance of an inevitable obligation. But if every person who voted Labour at the i>olls was disloyal, then there were 120,000 disloyalists at the last general election. He looked upon the politician who loudly professed his loyalty very much as he did upon tiie business man who proclaimed constantly his honesty. They both were men that required to he watched. The really loyal politician and the really honest business man took their loyalty and their honesty for granted. MR V. H. POTTER EXCUSES HIMSELF. Mr V. H. Potter, the member for Roskill. who is gravely concerned for the loyally of university students, and apparently would deny thorn all liberty of thought and speech, has declined an invitation from the Victoria College Debating Society to discuss these questions on the platform. The Society assured him a fair field and a courteous hearing, hut lie refused positively to have anything to do with its proposition. “I have already expressed very strongly my opinion,” lie wrote in reply to the invitation, "that your Debating Chib is merely a nursery for the propagation of ultra Socialistic and Communistic views, and T must decline to have any intercourse with men who welcome ns their guests to the University halls convicted soditionists, and adopt the views of gentlemen whose general loyalty and attitude to the British Empire- and our social conditions arc so well known as to need no comment. T am not to he drawn into an unseemly wrangle over this matter, and should prefer to have no further correspondence with you.” The Society’s invitation was frank and cordial and considering all the circumstances the member’s reply appears a little curt. PROHIBITION AND REVENUE. Mr L. M. Tsitt confined his contribution to the Budget debate in the House last night practically to the subject of prohibition and so was able to deal with it in a comprehensive manner. The momlror for Christchurch North still remains the most eloquent of the few capable speakers in the House and dealing with his favourite topic lie compels attention as much by the arts of the orator as ho does by the zeal of the apostle. He scouted the idea that the abolition of Ihe drink traffic would plunge the country into financial difficulties and even embarrassment. An argument of that kind, he said, disregarded the basic principles of political economy. The expenditure of nine millions a year on a harmful luxury could not he justified by any such consideration as the collection of a comparatively small amount of taxation or the maintenance of the liquor industry. Hut his arguments along these lines need no repetition here. It fell to the lot of Mr TT. M. Campbell to present the case for the other side. A rather better speaker than is the average member of tho House and obviously in earnest, the member for Hawke’s Bay did fairly well, hilt as an advocate inevitably suffered by eomparisonw itli his silvertongued opponent.