WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 September 1922, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

AGRICULTURAL BANKS. “THANK YOU FOR NOTHING.” SPECIAL TO GUARDIAN. WELLINGTON, September 13. Speaking at the quarterly meeting of the Dominion President of the Union expressed himself as both surprised and disappointed by the statement made by the Hon, w.i Dowiile Stewart at the conclusion of the Budget debate to the effect that the Government did not intend to give any assistance to the proposed farmers’ banks either by way of guarantee or subsidy. If that were the final decision of the Cabinet, he said, a majority of the Ministers must be hostile to agricultural banking and jgnoinnt of what was being done in this respect in other countries. For legislation merely allowing the farmers to do on a limited scale what the commercial community was doing to an unlimited extent the producers would owe the Government no thanks. Mr Poison made no allusion to his previous contention that the assistance given to the Bank of New Zealand in 1894 by the Government of the day provided a precedent for subsidies or guarantees being given to ngrietultural banks, and apparently ho had realised bis example did .not fit his case. HOBSON’S CHOICE.

It must be said for the Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union, however, that lie really had some ground for hoping that the GovemtnenF would assist the proposed agricultural banks with something more tangible than its good wishes. - The deputation, from the Farmers’ Union which waited upon the Prime Minister in connection with this matter at the time of the Dominion Conference certainly came away with the impression that Mr Massey had some scheme in his mind for giving financial assistance to the enterprise. But a closer examination of the financial position must have satisfied the head of the Government that he -had no money to spare for such hazardous experiments. Even had he been able to find two millions for agricultural banks, as Mr Seddon found two millions in 1894 to avert a national catastrophe, be still would have bad to charge the promoters ,6 or 7 per cent for the money and at that- price with preliminary expenses, working charges and taxation added, it would have ’been of little value to the farmers. Doubtless Mr Massey would have rather sided with Mr Poison and .his farmer friends than with their critics, but the ’.exigencies of the case left him with no alternative. RAILWAY REFORM. The Hon. 1). H. Guthrie’s long promised statement in regard to the re-or-gariisntion of the management of the rail nays was made in tlie House yesterday afternoon, but failed to arouse any noticeable enthusiasm. The prevailing opinion among members seemed to be that the scheme amounted to nothing more than a re-shuffling of the head office staff, which left the General Manager in supreme control with half-n dozen worthy officials of his own training privileged to advise him on matters of detail and to share the brunt of public criticism. Even the “Dominion” finds itself unable to applaud the Minister's scheme without grave reservations. “In some respect,” it says, “it will disappoint the expectations of the railway-using public.” The Minister apparently rejects tile view that commercial agents should be the sympathetic advocates of the commercial community and other railway users. In selecting two departmental officials, one of .them a district traffic manager, to act »s commercial agents lie evidently made as little of Mr Hi ley’s advice as of the opinions freely stated dining the last few months by business men.” This is faint praise indeed from a friend of the Government. REAL LIBERALISM.

Yesterday’s proceedings in the House were marked hv a rather curious and. perhaps, significant incident. Last week the “New Zealand Times” published an article by Sir John Findlay defining the principles of Liberalism, which attracted a good deal of attention here, and at question time yesterday Mr G. Witty, on behalf of Mr It. McCallum who was not present asked the Prime Minister if he would “cordially support and carry into effect the principles” laid down by Sir John. Mr Massey had no hesitation in affirming emphatically that he would do the best of li'is ability. He had read and reread the article and lie wished to say that in his opinion it was the best definition of Liberalism lie had over come across. “It is good enough for the Reform Party,” he said in conclusion, “and 1 am quite prepared to adopt it.” People are wondering whether Air jMcCallii.nl and Mr Witty were pleased or disappointed by Air Massey’s ready endorsement of Sir John’s sweetsounding phrases. Their less charitable critics are suggesting that they are looking for a base of reconciliation with the Reform leader and that in the search Sir John Findlay has proved their friend.