South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2267, 23 June 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1880.

The no-confidence debate deepens in interest as it progresses. The results, so far, indicate that while the Opposition is severely divided on the question of programme, the Ministers and their supporters are far from unanimous. From some of the most steadfast friends of the Government the proposals of the Colonial Treasurer have elicited anything but a warmth of approval. They have uniformly admitted the difficulties of -the situation, but they have unhesitatingly denounced the proposed remedies. It is to be feared that the colony is in the position of a sick patient in the hands of rival doctors. . Various and antagonistic courses of treatment are recommended. The Opposition suggest stimulants and nourishment, while the Colonial Treasurer adheres resolutely to the bleeding and blistering process that he originally prescribed. Let us hope that between so many earnest advisers the interests of the country will not be permanently damaged, •

In one thing the speakers on both sides appear; to be tolerably decided; they consider retrenchment in the Civil Service; expenditure to be indispensable. Government supporters join with the Opposition in declaring that the pruning knife has only been flourished by the Government instead of being skilfully and vigorously applied. Although we arc no admirers of the Member for Cheviot, because of the tortuous path which his political life reveals, we are bound to admit that his speech last evening contained a number of very excellent points. His suggestion that the demands of the Civil Service should be entirely regulated by the amount which the colony can afford to appropriate for its maintenance is worthy of consideration. Negociations in reference to the economic working of Government departments between the political and permanent managers, arc not likely' to prove of much practical utility. They may develop new illusions for the temporary gratification of a humbugged population, but their ultimate effect will be simply to postpone the evil day. If, as Mr Saunders submits, a definite sum for the working of the different departments could be voted by Parliament and the Government distinctly' told that the departments must be kept within this limit, a step would be taken in the way' of securing real instead of illusory retrenchment. The retrenchment which is proposed to be made at the expense of local bodies is not genuine, nor is it fair. It is merely' a shifting of taxation —a species of fiscal juggling which can only result in making confusion worse confounded, ami destroying all confidence between local bodies and the general Government. In Dunedin the

proposition Ims been denounced as an act of repudiation, and a violation of the Financial Arrangements Act, which stipulated for the continuance of these subsidies for two years longer. The socalled retrenchment, which is being carried out at the expense of local bodies, is simply spurious, not genuine. What the country demands in the shape of retrenchment is a substantial reduction in the working expenses of the Government. The Government have an excellent opportunity for displaying., their competence as administrators, if they like. The sores and excrescnces of the departments have been laid bare, and if the process of pruning and amputation is to proceed, now is the time for making a commencement. An empty treasury and a failing revenue afford ample justification for operations, which in prosperous times might seem harsh and uncalled for. But if the departments are to be denuded of their useless and overgrown branches, there must be no consultations and conferences. The working heads must be told to arrange matters in the most satisfactory manner possible. They must be told “there is your money ; it is' all we can afford ; do the best you can with it; reduce your staff if you like, but see that the cflicieney of the service is improved rather than impaired.” If a Jinn policy of this kind is adopted, many of those who have long - been studying the somewhat intricate processes of a red tape, how-not-to-do-it system will be galvanised into action. Mr Saunders’ advice to “ stop the supplies” is a good one. It may be old fashioned, but it carries with it the recommendation of having had its efficacy satisfactoril} r tested.