WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1922, Page 5

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

AGRICULTURAL BANKS. “THANK YOU FOR NOTHING.’ (Special Correspondent.) Wellington, Sept. 13. Speaking at the quarterly meeting of the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday, Mr. W. J. Polson, the Dominion president of the Union, expressed himself as both surprised and disappointed by the statement made by the Hon. W. Downie 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 cither by way of guarantee or subsidy. If that were the final decision of the Cabinet, he said, a mapority of the Ministers must be hostile to agricultural banking and ignorant 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 GoV-» ernment no thanks. Mr. Polson made no allusion to his previous contention that the assistance given to the Bank of New Zealand in 1894 by the-Govern-ment of the day provided a precedent for subsidies or guarantees being given to agricultural banks, and apparently he had realised that his example did not fit his case.

HOBSON’S CHOICE. It must be said for the Dominion president of the Farmers’ Union, however, that he really had some ground for hoping that the Government 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 ynth 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 bad he been able to find two millions for agricultural banks, as Mr. Seddon found two millions in 1894 to avert a national catastrophe, he still would have had to charge the promoters 6 or 7 per cent, for the money and at thatprice, 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. Polson and his farmer friends than with their critics, but the evigencies of the case left him with no al* ternative. RAILWAY REFORM.

The Hon. D. H. Guthrie’s long promised statement in regardto the re-organ-isation of the management of the railways was made in the 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 a 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 a scheme without grave reservations. In some respects,” it says, “it will disappoint the expectations of the railwayusing public. The Minister apparently rejects the view that commercial agents should be the sympathetic advocates of the commercial community and other railway users. In selecting two mental officials, one of them a district traffic manager, to act as commercial agents, he evidently made as little of Mr. Hiley’s advice es of the opinions freely stated during 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 by 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 atquestion time vesterday, Mr. G. Witty, on behalf of Mr. R. McCallum, who was not present, asked the Prime Minister if he would “cordially support and c ar sY into effect the principles” laid down by Sir John. Mr. Massey had no hesitation in affirming emphatically that he would to the best of his ability. He had read and re-read the article and he wished to sav that in his opinion it was the best definition of Liberalism he ever had come across. “It is good enough for the Reform Party,” he said in conclusion. “and I am quite prepared to adopt it.” People now are wondering whether Mr. McCallum and Mr. Witty were pleased or disappointde by Mr. Massey’s ready endorsement of Sir John. Findlay’s sweet-sounding 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 Fnidlay has proved their friend.