The Oamaru Mail. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1880.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 1 September 1880, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1880.

The Department of Life Assurance came in for some hard knocks when the estimates for the year were considered. In some respects the debate was the most interesting of the session. Being an open question, no element of party feeling entered into it. The champious on either 3ide were two veteran politicians usually found fighting under the same liberal banner. Sir George Grey's opposition was based upon the prospective liability incurred by the Colonial Treasury ; the j enormous patronage which such vast sums land such a number of appointments placed at the disposal of Ministers, and the unwarrantable interference, as he alleges, of such a scheme with private enterprise. To any subject which the hon. gentleman discusses he is certain to add the charm of his unrivalled eloquence and earnestness, and in debating this question he was more than equal to the occasion. As he conjured up the dread possibility of financial embarrassments, consequent upon any miscalculation or misguvernaiant, the tremendous liability of Government corruptly to i xercise such large patronage, and the er.orniity of Governments violatiug the sacred domain of private enterprise, the House listened with wrapt attention. As a psychological study, the effort was specially interesting. When the "old man eloquent " asked, What profit does the Government get ! he reached the climax. It is marvellous how such earnestness and eloquence tell, and it was some relief when Mr. Gisborne entered the lists on the other side. This hon. gentleman, withr out, perhaps, much art or eloquence, is nevertheless a powerful and practical debater. His connection with the department for some time as Commissioner enabled hin? moreover to speak from practical experience, and he fairly demolished the elaborate arguments of his late chief. He showed clearly enough that the liability was imaginary, thai corrupt administration was an evil unfortunately common to all government, but one from which such a department as life assurance, the savings bank, and public trustee were little liable, and it should be the care rather of til** Legislature to deliver such departments entirelv from temptation, lest such sacred trusts should be jeopardised. As afiording a safe and unimpeachable security to the provident cf the community, he regarded the life assurance department as a most valuable one, and he opined that the State, even if directly reviving therefrom no pecuniary benefit, had nevertheless important indirect benefits in promoting habits of thrift and economy among the people. Mr. Ballancc and others followed, and the department, notwithstanding some evident mistakes of management, is to be congratulated in having passed the ordeal of parliamentary siftini; with considerable eclat. On former occasions we have expressed our entire approval of the Government scheme of life assurance. It is on many grounds a very admirable institution, and we desire to deal with it in no unfriendly spirit. Unlike other departments of the State, the element of compulsion is utterly absent. It can prosper only by the free will of the people. It is essentially dependent for its successful existence upon the confidence and popularity which it inspires, hence it should be conducted upon purely commercial principles. It should be a model department, arul wo trust under its present management it Brill become so. It is with no hostile feeling therefore we complain of some recent appointments, which took us in this part of the Colony very much by surprise. We refer, of course, to the Dunedin office. One blunder followed speedily upon the heels of another, and this department has lost ground unquestionably in consequence of such unwise and purely political appointments. This state of things is all the more disappointing because, at considerable risk, the present Commissioner had previously put his foot down in Auckland. A great scandal was ended by his promptitude, and valuable moral results were reasonably enough anticipated by the department. But how futile are such efforts if inexperienced and incompetent men are chosen to fill the highest offices in the department ! Auckland waa purified, but Dunedin soon afterwards became scandalised. Auckland was promptly elevated in public estimation—the very life's blood of a department which must owe all its success to the popularity and confidence which it inspires. The Dunedin office soon afterwards became » byword in Otago. Why is it thus I How can <{'e account for such strange anomalies ? We cap not think that the Commissioner could by any possibility suffer himself to thus become the instrument of injustice and wrong. We have faith in Mr. Luckie. We have long known him to possess immense activity and energy. The guariter in nwdo is his forte, and in such a department it is an invaluable element. But we counsel him to be firm j likewise. Let him refuao to bow I the knee to Ministers, who, to placata importunate supporters, would fill every office in the State with imbecility and incompetence. We are writing thus from no censorious feelings, but wa owe it to an institution the most benevolent and beneficent under the control of Government that we should not mince matters. Our conviction is that the Commissioner brings to the discharge of important and responsible functions not only conspicuous activity and energy, but we trust also lofty and exalted motives. It is the widows and the orphans who appeal to us. In proportion as the department is urell and wisely managed will they be delivered from destitution ; nay, perchance from vice or crime ! With nations as with individuals, as they sow so shall they reap. " What profit," exclaimed Sir George Grey, " do we get in return for so much I responsibility V' " What profit," indeed Are we a nation of shopkeepers, only counting our gains in pounds, shillings, and pence ? Poes Government exist to accumulate filthy lucre 1 Do we thus inI terrogate, when education, for instance, is the question at issue) Wo marvel at Sir George Grey's inadvertent inconsistency. What profit do we get for an expenditure of nearly one fourth of the revenue from Customs on education ? Yet no one defended this expenditure more »armly than the hon. member lot the Thames. Our profit is an educated and intelligent people in place of an ignorant people. There is no element of money gain in such a bargain. So, too, with life asaur-

ance. We gain in provident habits; we gain in honest independence ; we gain in averting destitution, vice, and crime ; we dry up some at least of the widows' tears, and we diminish the cries for bread of the unfortunate fatherless. In thus, to some extent, solving the problem of pauperism, that most alarming and portentous evil, there is snrely a national profit immeasurably superior to mere money gain, and that, too, without a shilling of cost to the country, for the institution is not only entirely self-supporting, but it has large surplus funds, which will be periodically distributed among the insured. A vast and incalculable public good is thus being done without cost to the country. Could any better argument be adduced for management upon purely commercial principles ? Let those responsible for recent appointments reflect as to the method which private companies would adopt under similar circumstances. The spectacle is presented of a new and formidable rival selecting a Government officer for a highly responsible position, this same officer having been on several occasions discarded by the Government when the appointments of which we complain were being made. How demoralising to the service ! How injurious to a cause not merely good, but sacred. We are very hopeful for the future, and end as we began by trusting that the department will become a model one, an example to the neighboring Colonies, as well as to other countries.