Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, NOV. 7, 1893. That £240 a year.

Manawatu Herald, 7 November 1893, Page 2

Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, NOV. 7, 1893. That £240 a year.

• It is more marked every day how widely the candidates nominated by Mr Seddon differ with him on most subjects. Is this because the candidates find that Mr Seddon's views are unpalatable to the electors ? In this electorate, and in the adjoining one of Palmerston, we have candidates branded with the Government broad arrow who pass their time in stating their objections to main questions of policy of the Government and also on as many side issues as possible, and they likewise differ from each other; and yet the electors are asked to believe if these three meet together, viz., Messrs Seddon, Pirani and Fraser, they will be able to agree f It is a stretch of imagination that we cannot make, and we ask the electors to peruse, from time to time, the most ex traordinary views they put forth, and then judge for themselves if this thing can come to pass. On this coast Messrs Fraser and Pitani are declaring that the honorarium of £240 per year, payable monthly, and not liable to attachment in any way whatever, is too much, and they say they are determined, like economical patriots, to do their best to have this sum reduced to £150. Such disinterested politicians are hard to meet, and it would have induced on our part a wish that they had been in Parliament when the Payment of Members Act was passed, did we not know that we were just as well, perhaps better, served by Mr J. G. Wilson. He did hold similar views and expressed them and pointed out that Mr Seddon by this Act increased the expenditure of the country by £10,000 a year, which could be better used on roads and bridges. On this point therefore Mr Donald Fraser had no need to leave the retirement of his home to endeavour to replace Mr Wilson. This may not be have been the reason for Mr Fraser's step, but we do not know yet what his reasons are. What we know is that upon one point, costing £10,000 a year the two Government candidates are not in accord with the Government. We have already shown many other points on which Mr Pirani differs with them, and probably shall be able, when Mr Fraser speaks, to show how much he also differs from them. What wo are trying to find out is, whether these candidates, it returned to Parliament, are going to rule Mr Seddon, or Mr Seddon them. They have shown enough dependence upon Mr Seddon to accept his patronage, and yet pretend when speaking to the. electors that they think very little of him. This is very paltry, and we have recommended one candidate to have the courage to stand by his opinions and cast the governmental interference to the winds, and we would recommend our Government candidate to do likewise. If their courage is not up to this they should take a leaf out of Mr McLean's book and praise without stint all that the Government have done and all that they propose to do. We wondov very much if

either Messrs Fraser or Pirani have taken the trouble to read the debafe ou this Payment of Members Bill. Mr Seddon in proposing the measure 3aid that such a Bill was necessary to remove the reproach from members that they would endeavour to get two sessions in the one year, and draw a lump sum for ttofcli. He had $xed the p"ay higher for members of the Lower House than tor the Councillors because " there are contingent expenses cast npon members of this House which members of the Legislative Council Have nidfc to meet*" In replying to the remarks made Mr BerMoii declared " this measure is true economy." He again asserted that the amount was to help members who "must be frequently addressing meetings, and meeting their constituents from time to time, and discharging the other duties devolving upon then! as members of the House of Representatives." I?his *hows clearly that in Mr Seddon's opinion the sum was no larger than it should be. The Bill was also passed, as Mr Seddon felt it would be, by " a large majority." Our two candidates may thus feel pretty safe in prating of economy knowing that in this personal matter the^ Liberal members, "by a large majority" will be true to their leader* But What bast ingratitude ! Poor Mr Seddon secured members £90 a year extra and now they say the man's extravagant ! Mr Seddon may pass all these tricks of trade, but every blow levelled at him Will have to be paid in full* by humble obedience to his dictates, if his nominees do get returned to Parliament. Electors may bo amused at all this seeming independence on the part ot Government candidates, but it is " full of sound and fury signifying nothing." The common decency of repaying obligations must force each nominee of Mr Seddon's to give him their vote when called upon. This incubus JJis a terrible handicap and will probable weight both competitors out of the race. We wondered if these candidates had read what Mr Seddon had said, for il they had they would have caught the very practical view he took on this ques tion, and perhaps then the £240 would not have loomed so large in their eyes. " A man when he becomes a member of this House is expected by his constituents to be well clothed, and, although he is a working-man, he likes to see his family well clothed," and under these circumstances Mr Seddon thought the amount " reasonable."