The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1885, THE LYTTELTON TIMES ON CHEAP MONEY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1392, 15 September 1885, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1885, THE LYTTELTON TIMES ON CHEAP MONEY.

Eighteen months ago there was not a newspaper in New Zealand, with the exception of this paper, that had the hardihood to write in favor of cheap money. It was new ; editors of newspapers did not understand the question, and they were afraid of being laughed at it they took it up. Since then, however, the subject has acquired prominence. It has been made the subject of a Parliamentary discussion ; several members have spoken on it, and now almost every newspaper in New Zealand has something to say on the question. Even the Lyttelton Times has at last become converted to the Cheap Money scheme, and, on last Thursday, published an excellent leading article on the subject. The Press and the Otago Daily Times have been crying the proposal down the last-named paper stating that the only way to improve the condition of farmers was to improve them off the face of the earth 1 The Lyttelton Times has, literally speaking, taken these two papers by the collar and given them both a pretty good shaking. It says that the farmers “are warned that they will be injured.” This warning resembles the way English landlords and Conservative papers advise agricultural laborers to “ bless the squire and his relations, and always be contented with their proper station.” The Times goes on to say : “We are told by writers, who have the air of stating unanswerable truths, that money is always cheap where it is abundant. Then, in that case, we may indeed ask—why has it not been cheap in Christchurch for the past two years 1 It is notorious that money has lain here waiting for investment in very large sums indeed, and has not found it. Money has been a drug in the hands of lending and investing companies. Why not face the truth, and admit at once that money is dear in Canterbury because the Banks in union have determined that it shall be dear t That determination, if not an immutable law of political economy, is an amply sufficient reason for practical people. Moreover, if its truth would not be privately admitted by nine men of business out of ten in Christchurch we are mistaken. The wretched farmer is airily advised to work away and cheapen money by increasing the national wealth and the abundance of money in the Colony. We are immensely taken by the real, immediate, plain, practical value of this remedy. We look at the prices the farmer is obtaining for his wheat; the balances the middlemen leave him on their acocunt sales of his meat; the state of the wool market; and the prices obtainable for land and improvements. We compare the increasing amount extracted from Canterbury by means of the property tax with the amount returned to this Province in the way of expenditure. A brilliant prospect for the farmer, toiling to free his neck from the yoke, is it not ? He is so extremely likely by thrift and industry to increase, during the next few years, the notional wealth, and the abundance of money, to the extent of softening the proverbially tender heart of the moneylender. We almost wonder that interest lias not already begun to fall at the bare suggestion.”

There is still an argument stronger than any the Times uses which goes to show that the wealth of this colony cannot increase. Ninety per cent., perhaps more, of the shareholders ot banks and mortgage companies live out of the colony ; they get dividends of 15 to 20 per cent, per annum; these dividends are taken away, and are impoverishing the «olony. The Times continues

“They are told that if the State finds cheap money, it might just as well find cheap boots and shoes and clothing and medical help for those who want them. They answer, with perfect truth, that the State does find these things for certain unfortunate people, and finds them simply because experience has shown that it pays the State best to do so. If it be the State’s interest to feed and clothe the pauper, to employ the unemployed, to provide doctors for the Maoris, and hospitals for the white men, why should not the State raise its hand to help a class so infinitely more valuable to the Colony than the pauper, the unemployed, or the Maori f The State builds wharves and goods-sheds for importers j the State provides cheap land, cheap railways, cheap telegraphs, cheap roads, bridges, and water-races, cheap education, and cheap law. The State enables the economical and prudent to insure their lives at exceptionally cheap rates. The State maintains or subsidises hospitals, and in so doing actually does provide cheap medical aid for classes who are not pauperised thereby. Ail these things must be contrary to the logic of the political economy which sees an outrageous breach ot economic laws in cheap money. At any rate, if the latter be contrary to economic principles, so are all the others. The State already interferes in a dozen ways with private enterprise without drawing a murmur of disapproval from bankers, merchants, importers and money-lenders. Why should not the State aid the farmers if it can conveniently and safely do so 1 And if aid can bo safely given to cultivators in despotic India and Germany, in Republican Trance and Democratic America, why should it not bo safely given in New Zealand! Have Indian ryots, French peasants, German Boers, or American farmers been made thriftless or idle by State assistance 1 The world knows that no more thrifty, self-denying, patient, and laborious men exist in any part of the globe than these cultivators. So far from seeing anything to laugh or sneer at, or utterly condemn, in the wish of Sir Julius Vogel and Mr Maoandrew to lighten the load of our over*

burdened farmers, we can think of no graver question, no nobler work.” It gives us infinite pleasure to see a powerful paper like the Lyttelton J lines taking up this subject so vigorously, as it gives ns hope that it will result in it being made a test question at the next election. We hope it will be, and that people will put aside differences of opinion with regard to other subjects and vote for that alone.

THE BANKS

The usury practiced by New Zealand Banks is attracting the attention of the civilized world. “Mr Arthur Clayden, through the columns of the Colonies and India, laments the avarice of the New Zealand banks, which are not, like their London brethren, content with 4 or 5 per cent interest for prime security, but demand 8 to 10 per cent. He hints that these institutions are kill* ing the geese which lay the golden eggs.”