Truth THE SEDDON GRANT.

NZ Truth, Issue 62, 25 August 1906, Page 4

Truth

THE SEDDON GRANT.

PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY MORNING at Luke's lane (off mannersstreet), Wellington, N.Z. SUBSCRIPTION (IN ADVANCE), 133. PER ANNUM.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1906,

Although no mention was made of the matter m the Governor's Speech on Tuesday the question of the grant to be made to the widow of the late Premier is one that Parliament will have to decide shortly, and it is very evident from the general expressions given vent, to, not only by members themselves, but by citizens of all classes, that there is a great diversity of opinion as to the extent of the grant which the country should be called upon to subscribe. Various amounts have 'been suggested, ranging from £3000 up to £50,000, with the Ministerial residence m Molesworthstreet thrown, m. Had the matter | been brought before the House immediately following Mr Seddon's death-, public feeling was at such fever heat that there would have been an outcry had- any thing less than what would now be considered an exorbitant amount been passed. That wildly extravagant suggestions were made and seriously entertained by leading politicians and business men was only another of the many testimonials of the '' dead man's popularity and his greatness and also of. the esteem m which his family was held. The country at that time* was prepared to make any .sacrifice or vote any amount of' money to honor the name of Seddon. And it is not that his great star burns any the less brightly, or thathis memory is the less reverred that' the extravagant proposals so freely 1 made a few weeks back have given .place to more reasonable counsels.

When Parliament is considering what amount shall be voted to Mrs Seddon,. its best guide will be the late v Premier's own established pre- ' cedents. The widow of John Ballance was granted £3000, Lady McKenzic was £iven £2000 when old Sir John gave up the gjhost, and to Sir Harry Atkinson's widow, who was practically penniless at her husband's death £3000 was voted. All of these men served their country faithfully until death, and none of them died really wealthy men. They may not have served so long as Mt Seddon, nor have achieved as much, but such considerations should not count whenthe servant's life has passed out and those who were dependent upon him are being provided for. It is several years ago now since Mr Seddon, speaking of the need for Parliament \ to make grants , to the widows of deceased Ministers, said that the Ministerial salary should be such as would allcrw a saving for possible contingencies The Premier at that time was getting £1000 a year with £200 house allowance, and the Ministers £800 a year each, with a like house allowance.; this Mr Seddon thought was not. sufficient. 'A Minister could not possibly live upon £800 a year and save money. With a view, therefore, of -giving Ministers __ chance to provide for their old age, change of political fortune, or other contingency, the Ministerial salaries were raised all around— Premier £1500, Railways £1300, and other Ministers £1000 each, with the usual house allowance, m cases where no Ministerial residence was provided. With this income Ministers are supposed to be able to save a little. Many a man has to keep a big family on the house allowance alone, and is supposed to provide for a rainy day out of that. It is only fair to presume that Mr Seddon acted upon the principle he advocated and laid by a substantial portion of his Ministerial salary. Were he himself here he would be the first to deprecate any. extravagant grant being asked of Efae country.

, It is not our business, nor is it anybody's business, to pry into the private affairs of Mrs Seddon and

ascertain whether she is left a wealthy woman or otherwise. That side of the question must not be taken into consideration. It is sufficient to know that she is not left without means, and that there is to be no question of charity about the matter. Parliament must dismiss all sentiment when discussing the amount that is to be given. It is its duty to remember that any departure it may take from the course that has previously been adopted will establish a precedent that may lead to untold abuses. That the country is at the present time prosperous and can afford to be liberal is no excuse for excessive generosity. The country, like individuals, should provide for a rainy day, and extravagant and unnecessary grants, no 'matter how excellent the sentiment that prompts the offering, should be condemned as earnestly and emphatically as any other wasteful expenditure. And moreover, there a few hundred poor m this city of Wellington alone, who would find life much easier to bear, if the revenue were cut down a few thousands by, say, lifting the tax on potatoes. Let Parliament be generous, by all means, but let it think of the colony's poor also, and be just.