The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1887. POLITICAL REFORM.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1603, 5 July 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1887. POLITICAL REFORM.

Wa have received from the Political Reform Association of Christchurch, a Reflet containing its platform »s follows : “1. To insist upon Retrenchment in all Departments of tbe Public Service, and to Promote Reform m tbe Finances of the Colony. “ 2. To reduce tbe Legislative expenditure. “3. To obviate as far as possible any necessity for increased taxation. "4. To resist further borrowing. • “5. To simplify the Land Laws of the Colony so as to facilitate the settlement of the people upon the land. “ 6. To advocate thorough retrenchment in the Department of Education, whilst main taining tbe existing National Free System. " 7. To secure reform in the administration of the railways. “8. To oppose any further increase in existing Customs Duties, except for revenue purposes, as tbe present tariff may be deemed to afford ample assistance for the development of local industries. “ 9. To secure the return to Parliament of members who may be relied upon to stedfastly and consistently give effect to these objects. ” For the most part tbiw programme is ridiculously meaningless. The three first items deal with retrenchment, and every one must approve of it, but where the difficulty comes in is that these political reformers do not lat us know how the retrenchment can be effected. Sir Robert fcjtout shows how £200,000 can be saved. Who are we to believe— The men who put general meaningless statements before us, or Sir Robert Siout, who points out the way by giving us exact figures f Toe fourth platform must as a matter of course be adopted, for to borrow more, except to save oarselves from bankruptcy, means ruin. There is no necessity for further borrowing, there is no one talking of further borrowing now, for the people are opening their eyes to the fact that it means ruin. But when did the monopolists of Christchurch realise this fact? Only three years ago, the man who would have opposed borrowing to make the West Coast Railway, would have been hooted off any pUtform in Christchurch. The Christchurch people made use of Sir Julius Vogel and Sir Robert Stout then to get the railway, but now, having got it, they want to throw them overboard for the “Grain Tax M Ministry. There is nothing substantial in the fifth to the eighth propositions. On tbe sixth proposition they appear to be , in that condition of mind in which the j ass between two stacks of hay is supposed to be. They advocated cutting down the education vote, but after this bad been published they found people protesting against it, and they put in the following explanation “ N.B.— Some apprahonaion having arisen that it is proposed to make radical changes iu the educational system of the colony, the Committee desire it to be known that the Association’s only object is to advocate economy in the Department named, without interfering with the efficiency of the existing Rational Free System. With this they hoped to gull their dupes, but it will be seen that it means nothing whatsover. The eighth is the real quastion that prompts these gentlemen—the Customs duties. One has;only to look over the Hat of names on the Committee to know exactly what it sII means. It is principally composed of importers, and they do not want to increase the Customs duties except in a way that will suit themselves—tbat is, for revenue purposes. It is important that we should understand the meaning of putting duties on for revenue purposes. It Means tbat it is right to t/x the goods we import in every way, ejeept in n way that would promote local industries. Now the Protectionist says it is right to protect the goods we can produce ourselves, and let the goods we cannot in free, or as free as possible. Both agree to pit on a tax, and the difference between them is that the Freetrader taxes everything up the highest level that will give revenua without promoting local industry, while the Protectionist only taxes such articles as can be produced at home. The gentlemen who compose the Committee of the Poliiical Reform Association mat recently as members of the Christchurch Chamber of Commerce, and passed resolution* condemning tbe proposals of the but suggesting that the tax on tea, sugar, and tobacco should be increased. These goods cannot ba produced locally, and because they cannot they decided tbat they should be taxed. Now, why did they do this ? Because they do not want local industries to start, for the reason that their own occupation as importers would be gone. Sir Robert Stout gave another reason for it. While the subject was under discussion in Parliament recently Sir Robert Stout said that these merchants had, in anticipation of a rise in the Customs duties, laid in large stocks of tea, sugar, ard tobacco under the present duty, and they wanted the Government to put on a high duty on these articles so tbat they could charge higher prices and make higher profits out of them. Sir Robert Stout would not have dared to say so unless he knew it was true, and it being therefore undoubtedly correct what are we to think of this selfish, mercenary clique who, in order to gain profit, suggests such a policy ? These are the high-minded gentlemen who are non ready to throw themselves, Quintus Curtius-like, into the political gulf. The helots of Greece used to refuse the good things offered by their oppressors because they bad been so long accustomed to have deception practised on them that they could not believe that the intentions of their master# were honest. It is eo with ai.

We have no hesitation in saying that part of the programme of the Political Reform Association is good, but we cannot believe that much good can be got out of money-rings, monopolists, and importers, and we refuse to accept their lead.