MR ROLLESTON AT TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1637, 22 September 1887, Page 3

MR ROLLESTON AT TEMUKA.

Mr RolldHon addressed a large meetiog Of electors of Gladstone and Rangitata in the Volunteer Hall, Temuka, on Wednesday evening, Mr K. F. Gray occuptpd the chair and bespoke a similarly fair hearing for Mr Rolleston to that accorded to other gentlemen addressing them on political matters. Mr Rolleston aftar a few preliminary observations went on todiscusstbe financial position, and the Government proposals to meet the deficit. He maintained that the question of the day resolved itself into whether the country was prepared to cwtail borrowing and adopt a policy of thrift and economy, or continue to support proposals involving lavish expenditure and extravaganoe. He was pleased to find himself placed in opposition to a candidate who avowedly supported the Stout-Vogel Administration. It was his (Mr Rolleeton's) duty, as a member of the Opposition, to lay tbeir views before them, and he hoped his opponent would be able to show good cause for his support of the present Government. He then retraced the political events of the past few years, i toy stated that the Government when called to office had abjured a Protection policy. Finding the deprtmsion more deeply seated than they thought for, they brought down proposals of increased taxation, which were opposed by the Opposition on the grounds that it would have led to in- . creased expenditure instead of the practice of economy. He instanced among other matt*ra the Meiggs proposal, the Subsidies to Local Bodies, and also the ' District Railways proposals. Captain Russell's proposal to curtail borrowing by half a million, he was glad to say, was carried. On being asked by an elector as to bow much ho was responsible for borrowing, Mr Rolleston defended the action of his Government, and stated that they had borrowed no more than was actually necessary to oarty out works that the country was already committed to. Personally he had always tried to keep borrowing within reasonable limits, and was in consequence looked upon aa a drag on public expenditure. He then severely criticised the action of the Government in raspect of the schedule new railway lines, the majoiety of which he considered would have been virtually useless. He also claimed that the Ministerial expenses had never been so heavy as during the tenure of office of the Ereient Ministry. It had been increas»d y over £4OOO. There had also been a number of appointments made to the Legislative Council without its efficiency being increased in any way. The I efence expenditure had also been trim, ferred from revenue to loan and largely increased. He then referred to the proposed increase of the Customs Duties and . the other means by which the Government propnsed to meet the deficiency, and claimed that'they were such as the country could not respond to. The wealth of the country, be maintained, could not be increased by a policy of Protection, and ke was astonished to find the Government who abjured Protection in 1884 making a great cry of it cow. Ha (Mr Rolleston) denied that it was really the issue before the country, and contradicted Sir Robert Stout's statement that the. policy of the Opposition was to take the burdenof taxation off the wealthy and pat it on the poor. On tbe matter of Protector., it wns a mstake to suppose that protected industries meant high ~ wages. The industries that required hiavy assistance through the Customs would shortly languish beforp loeal competition, and then with anything like high wages manufacturers would be nnable to compete in outside markets. The coneeqaence would be the employment of women and children and a general reduction in,the matter of wages. After a time, as in America, there would eooo be a number of unemp'oyed. Under a Freetrade, policy farmers would be largely benefited. There would be cheaper freights, because .vessels wonld have no difficulty in obtaining a back load. The ..-■" introduction of the Property Tax was due he said to his Government, who were anxious to equalise the incidence of taxation. He claimed that the present Government had put £IOO,OOO intoithe pockets of property holders by lowering the property tax. He then criticised tbe provisions of the Progressive Property Tax, and condemned it as thoroughly onworkable. Hequoled Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill in supporfcof his argument. He should most certainly oppose it by every means in his power. He believed in making the country attractive, bo as to induce peop>e with capital to bring it here and invest it. He then referred to the Indebtedness of the colony, and expressed his continued confidence in its prospeetß •;if¥goeid policy were adopted. The resources of the colony were immense, and its power of productiveness was daily increasing. He objected to Sir Robert StdUt. promising to continue the Otago Central and tho Melentsville Northern railways, and to borrowing money for ' this purpose, It waß the duty of the. Government to atop all borrowing, give | the country rest and b'eatbing time, and to allow it to enter upon a course of thrift and ecoDoroy. Sir Rob.'rt Stout had assumed that the Education question would enter into the coming election, but he coold assure them tl.ati' would never b« touched upon whatever party was in power. For hie own pait he would never interfere with it. Mr ilulkbton J hen j warmly defended the pieseat educational . aystem, and claimed that tbe position of Secondary education wns misrepresented. Out of thi» whole cost of Secondary Education, which amounted to £58,000, only £3OOO was paid out of taxation. • Tho remainder was made Up by the rents of reserves and school fees. . Mr Rolleston contended that the cry that the Opposition was at variance with the wishes of the people on the question of the Canterbury runs was fvlse. 'lke whole question was virtually settled already, as u was apon tbe Statute Book. There was no t-eces-aity for tbe .question to be reopened. The subject wan one that required skilled legislation. The f'uty of t,.e Government ■ now was to clausity tbe runs, and they wonld then be submitted to auction,

Sm»H rvM of 5000 tOTed WuUld also, be '. ".jiubuiitted. 'fl.-fe fcsure that people did ' not understand the clues of couitiy that bad to be dealt with, or they woud hot t'Okso much about tin equating interest, H' 14<t it to be unfair to characterise h,in ' (the speaker) am being b kqiiatiera' advouate. he hud done l.u bust to piomoie legitimate Beltlnmient, aud was teapons bl« toe the introduction nt the peipetual leasehold systems. It was a system •nii-v-nuj adapted to prevent rh» undue

assertion of capital over the land. It also tended to settle the question of tenant rierht. Mr Rolleston then reviewed at ibugth the gmin tax question, and stilled that when h'B Government went out of office in 1884 they left a more favorable tariff than they found when they assumed the reins of Government in 1879. He believed, however, (hat they lowered the tariff too much in the first instance, and if they subsequently raised it too much they only did what they considered to be their duty, and were content to stand the consequence. On the question of railway management he was in favor the Railway regulations being removed from political pressure. 1 In coDclusion he thanked them for their patient hearing. He had spoken at unusual length because he would have no other opportunity of addressing them previous to he election. He wished them to judge if he was likely to fulfil his , romises and if they thought so he hoped that they would return him. He felt confident, however, that anyone who entered th» coming Parliament ard fulfilled his duty to his country faithfully would incur a certain amount of odium. If returned he would do his bast, and if not would take defeat cheerfully. During the course of his address Mr Kolleeton was applauded, but several of his statements were received with axpressions of dissent. An interruption occurred when a stranger somewhat under the influence of liquor was by direction of the Chairman removed from the Hall.

Replying to Mr Davis, Mr Rolleston said that he was in favor of the payment of Coroners' jurors on tbe same scale as other jurymen. Replying to Mr Surridge, Mr Rolleston said he was not prepared to say that he would vote for the annual subsidy of £260 to the United Fire Brigade Association.

MrScannell handed up a series of questions, which were put in the following order:

How is it you are making so much noise about the present Government proposing to put a tax of 5 per cent, on calicoes, when the Government of which you were a member agreed to a tax of 15 per cent, on eotton counterpanes and cotton goods t —Mr Rolleston said it was true thit his GoverßiLent h«d largely increased the Customs duties, but it was no argument in favor of putting on further duties at the present time. The country ceuld not bear it.

Suppose two men—one with an income of £IOO a year, and another with an income of £IO,OOO a year—smoke an equal quantity of tobacco, the tax on which comes to £l, do they both contribute to the revenue in proportion to their ability, and does not the tobacco tax fall thousands of times more heavily on the poor man than on the rich man ?- -Mr Rolleston was glad the question had been asked. The Customs duties undoubtedly fell hardest on the poor, and his was the very Government that had brought in a measure calculated to relieve the poor. His own action had always been in the direction cf adjusting tbe incidence of taxation as equitably as possible. The question really led to a great argument in favor of Freetrade. The argument framed from it was " Don't put on Protective duties."

Why did your Government increase the tobacco tax in 1879 by 40 per cent, knowing that the tax fell morn heavily on the poor than on the rich f—Mr Rolleston contended that tobacco was really a luxury, and thought that it might fairly be taxed. Ho should imagine, however, that under the tax the rich man still paid tbe moat, as a higher charge was made on cigars, which were not only dearer, but did not go so far. You have made great capital out of the present Government proposing to put an increased duty of one peony per lb on tea in 1885, but do you remember that it was the Grey Ministry, of which Sir Robert Stout, Mr Ba'lnnce, and Mr Larnacb were members, reduced the duty on tea in Is7Bl—Mr Rolleston recollected when Sir Robert Stout and Mr Ballance reduced tbe duty on tea. They were then in the good company of Sir George Grey, and went in for a free breakfast tabe. His

Government left the duty as they fouud it. On what principle did your Government in 1879 increace the tax on galvaniced iron by 100 per cent., and the tax on nails and itcrews by 33$ per cent I—Mr Rolleston said that his Government had to get a certain araonnt of revenue, and they did the best they could. He was not prepared to say at Ibis distance of tim* what particnlar arguments had boen used in favor \ of the duty imposed. The question was fairly discussed at the time. 'The expenditure had to be met by the revenue. On what principle did your Government in 1879 increase the tax on currants and J raisiim by 100 per cent. ?—Mr Rolleston, was not prepared to admit that such was the case, but if so he could only give an answer similar to that to tho former question.

How is it that the Hall-Atkinson Ministry adjusted the Customs so that elastic-side boots were allowed in free, while common boots were taxed 12s per dozen?—Mr Rolleston did not know the facti of the case. It was impossible to answer such questions ofR-hasd. He denied tb.it it was intended to relieve the "big bugs'' aa intimated by someone in tho body of the hall. Why is it that in 1879 your Govern, men* increased the tax r>n common wines by 25 per cent., while th*y male no incretise in the t !| x on sparkling wises, such as champagne f—Mr Rolleston said it wßS'simply *»'question of out of winch could tho most revenue bo raised. It ws no tue tax.i'g champagne. Snim _ things could be «"> heavily t«x n d thi>t peop'e could not tfford to use them.

If you aio opposed to protecting local industry, why has your Government given subsidies to ships to advance the lu't'ereats of merchants and impoiters? Mr Rollestoo ai-t not think that subsidies given to sh'ps *as more in favor of importers tlinu of consumors. it was an industry of general interest. He, ho«ever, did not think it necessary now to continue the auUidie*,

H'W is it that in 1879 vilibit the Hall (loveromeut, ot wh.c»i vnu .»«re a iuhi.u b«r, raised the CuKionm ••:i»ie-, the tax -.» binit'iij; twi'ie useil by tarmprß **s i*i-eri to 15 per o. u' . *hiW th- «f !*i.,« us.il by *quatt<-i» was illowe'l i" free I Mr R«i *aton said he C 'U'd rmt carry ma memory baCK as to the Virion* reasons that influenced what was alter ail raeie mat lew of detail, The question haa been

fairly discussed both by the Government and the House.

Your Ministry revised the Customs duties in 1882 so thai, vou collected over £1,500,000 from 500,000 people, or tit the rate of £3 per head, how is it now that you denounce the present Government, who luvo only raice-J £1,200.000 from 600,000, or at the rate of a little over £2 per head. -Mr Rolleston said that it was no argument that because a certain amount was collected in 1882 that the same thine; should be done in 1887. The country now waß le<s afre to bear it.

If you are opposed to protecting local industries, why i* it that yon favor spending thousands of pounds of thß tax payers' money every year on killing rabbits to protect the squatters I—Mr Rolleston said it was a question of getting the best value out of their pastoral lunds. He had m sympathy with people who talkod of protecting the squittets when the intf rest of the whb'e country was at stake. He would do iustice to each class.

If it is legitimate to spend thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money on killing rabbits, why is it that the tax for killing small birds has to be paid out of Road Board rates I —Mr Rolleston said that the State was not the landlord of the farmer, a? in tbe case of pastoral runs. It nas a matter of local consequence and should ke locally dealt with.

Were you not ca'led the "People's William " because you always opposed the Continuous Ministry, until ia 1879 they bought you over by giving you a portfolio? —Mr Rolleston eonaideted the question an iusulting one, and dfclined to answer it, but Mr Scaonell explainet that no insult was meant, and wished Mr Rolleston would not look upon it in that light. —Mr Rolleston then said it was ridiculous humbug the cry that was made about the "Continuous Ministry." If there was a Continuous Ministry it was the present one. Sir Julius Vogel was at all events the virtual herd of what was called tbe Continuous Ministry. Mr Quinn, amidst deafening uproir and grnanp, mounted the platform and essayed to speak. At each alterant the stamping and groans was redoubled, and although it was seen that Mr Quinn was speaking his words were perfectly inaudible. When he bad left the stage the Chairman aaid that a vote of thanks h»d been proposed to Mr Rolleston for his address.

Mr Gilliatt seconded the motion, whioh was carried. Mr Rolleston then moved a vote of thanks to the chair, and the meeting dispersed.