AN UNIMPORTANT QUESTION!

Temuka Leader, Issue 1490, 8 April 1886, Page 2

AN UNIMPORTANT QUESTION!

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,- 1 write to congratulate Mr Twomey on the discussion with Mr Rnlleston last Tuesday evening, and (o express my astonishment that the Temukans would not even allow “ a fair field and no favor.” But the chief defence of th« opponents of a State Bank is silence, and when that is broken down they have nothing better to do than to howl, therefore we must not blame them if they are obliged to resort to that style of argument. Depend upon it, however, Mr Editor, that when the Temukans thought the matter over afterwards, they must have seen that Mr Twomey was on the side of (to use Mr Rolleston’s own words) “ Those who tight the battle of liberty on behalf of the greatest number,” while, on the other hand, if Mr Rolleston op- 1

poses, or does net advocate, the establishment of a State Bank, be will (to again use his own words) be on the side of those “ who blindly sacrifice the many in the selfish interests of companies, speculators, and monopolists." Every man has a right to be heard, and especially so when he is recommending something which ho claims will save the colony from further borrowing, (to use Mr Rollesfon’a words again) “Save us from the rings and companies which corrupt legislatures, and choke the expression of the popular will”; and, also, save “ half our population from becoming the slaves of money-lending corporations—a landlordism of the worst character.’* How the colony is to find four or five millions a year to pay the interest on our foreign public and private debt, whereas we have but £2,000,000 in coin, and considering that the value of our imports exceeds that of our exports, is really a very haid question ; and as Mr Rolleston truly remarked, it is a question that gets more difficult to answer every day ! He also said that it was hardly possible for him to answer all Mr Twomey’s questions then.

The Lyttelton Times, however, coolly reported that after Mr Rolleston’s speech several unimportant questions were ashed and answered!!! This is the way in which the most important question of the day. in New Zealand is shirked and smothered up by a newspaper which cringes to those “ moneylending rings and companies that corrupt our legis* lature."

Mr Rolleston complains that the tendency of the day is too much to cry to Jupiter when our own efforts would better effect what we require. Yet Mr Rolleston would have us make Jupitars of the London Stock Brokers, and would hare us pray to them to lend us paper money (at the same rate of interest as gold I) to the value of such securities or property as we may give them in exchange, whilst our own Government (in other words, we ourselves) could do the business just as well. If these (questions are really getting harder to answer every day, they will be wonderfully hard bye and bye ! It should be instructive to the opponents of a State Bank to read in to-day’s Lyttelton Times how twenty-five years ago the croakers and Mrs Grundy ridiculed De Lesseps and his Suez Canal Scheme. They called him a “ dangerous foo',’’ and his scheme an “extensive joke.” But. he laughs best who laughs last. Magna est veritas et praemlebit l—l am, etc., John Miles Verbal!. Ohoka, North Canterbury, April 3rd, 1886. [ln commenting on the result of Mr Rolleston’s meeting, we said that outsiders would put the hooting down to opposition to the Bank Scheme. Here is evidence of it. Mr Yerrall evidently thinks lemuka people are opposed to it, whereas such is not the case. In a thoughtless effort to put down the author of the scheme, because he had the presumption to ask Mr Rolleston questions which he could not answer, the peopls of Temuka did a good deal of harm, but they ought to bo forgiven on the ground that they did not know what they were doing. Mr Rolleston, after having been a quarter of a century in the most leading positions in politics, ought to have been able to tell people where they could get the money to pay away, but he could not. When Mr Twomey asked where the £4,000,000 could be got, he replied it could be got by “ direct taxation.” Now, more than half the £4,000,000 is interest on private indebtedness, and fancy a politician of 25 years’ standing telling his constituents that interest on private indebtedness could be raised by “ direct taxation!” At this juncture the people howled Mr Twomey off the stage, and wo think it was just about time. To allow him to go any further would hava made things uncomfortable. We have just made these remarks to show that it was not the scheme—but Mr Twomey—that was hooted. We have not criticised Mr Rolleston because it might be put down to spite, and we do not like to give any room for such a suspicion. We entertain no spite against Mr Rolleston. If the people knew that out of every 20s we produce we pay about 13j 6d for interest, leaving only about 6s 6d to live on, it is possible they might be tempted to ask their representative to explain how are they to get on.—The Editor.] -