The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1887. RETRENCHMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1659, 12 November 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1887. RETRENCHMENT.

The Hon. Me Fishes has introduced a Bill into Parliament which has for its object the amending of the Industrial Schools Act so as to provide for recovering from parents and Charitable Aid Boards the cost of maintaining and educating children sent to the Industrial Schools. By this means no doubt a part of the Atkinson retrenchment will be effected, and it might be well for the people to reflect on how it will work. In a previous article we showed that if retrenchment is effected in certain directions the money will have to be paid out of local rates, The Stout-Vogel Government threw the responsibility of administering charitable aid on the different districts, and as a quid pro quo gave the local bodies subsidies which enabled them to provide funds for Charitable Aid without taxing the ratepayers. The system worked well until now, when the Atkinson Ministry is going to take away the subsidies to local bodies. The result of that will be that the Road and Town Board rates will have to be increased, in some instances to twice the present rate. Not content with this, the Government has introduced the Bill mentioned above to compel Charitable Aid Boards to pay for children sent from any district to the Industrial Schools. That means that any children sent from South Canterbury to the Industrial School must be paid for out of the rates paid by the ratepayers within the South Canterbury district. The ratepayers must pay the local bodies, who must pay the Charitbale Aid Baord, who must pay the Government, or the managers of the Industrial Schools. Now is this not a system of finance which can most expressively be explained by the old adage of “ robbing Peter to pay Paul ? ” Major Atkinson may retrench in Government expenditure, but the money must be paid out of local rates, so in reality the people get no relief. This is how Major Atkinson has been able to. effect retrenchment. Three hundred thousand pounds looks well—it is a grand stroke of retrenchment—buthowmuch of it shall we have to pay in local rates? Let it be remembered this year he will save only £71,000; that he cannot reduce the number of members for three years, and, therefore, cannot retrench in that department. Major Atkinson’s retrenchment is unreal, and people will yet find it out. ' THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. . Sir Frederick Whitaker has made a motion in the Legislative Council to the effect that if the Lower House shall consent to reduce its mem bership to 70, the Council shall reduce itself to 35, which is half that number. Nine out of every ten men in the colony will think this a very fine thing, yet there is no more vicious proposal in the whole of the Government policy. If the Council is reduced to 35, and Government has no power to make any fresh appointments those 35 men can, and doubtless will, to a groat extent rule the colony. They will have autocratic power, they will be dictators to any Government, and can do , just as they like. Most people do not understand this, and consequently it is necessary to explain how such power would be placed into their bands by reducing their number. A Legislative Councillor holds office for life. The Council is constituted on tha same principle as the House of Lords at Home, and the Government of the day has power to appoint as many new members as they deem desirable. Who has not beard of a threat once j used by Mr Gladstone to thp effect I

that if the House of Lords did not agree to one of his proposals he would swamp them by creating new Lords. A Government has no other means of carrying their measures, should the Council prove antagonistic to them. For instance, when in 1887 Sir George Grey went into office he found the majority of the Legislative Council antagonistic to his Government. The Continuous Ministry had been in power for years before, and had appointed their own friends to the Council, and consequently Sir George Grey had to appoint some Liberal Councillors, so as to enable him to carry his measures through the Legislative Council. The same thing occurred when Sir Robert Stout took office in 1884. A majority of the Council was in favor of the Continuous Ministry, and Sir Robert found it necessary to make fresh appointments. There was a great cry made against the Stout-Yogel Government because they made fresh appointments to the Council, but when they found they could not get on without doing so, how could they help it? Now if the number of members is fixed at 35, and no Government has power to make any fresh appointments, the result will be that the 35 members of the Upper House can saap their fingers at any Government and refuse to pass any measure ot which 18 of them disapprove. Thus 18 of the Upper House can rule the country, for 18 will make a majority of 35, and as they hold office for life, and no Government will have the slightest control over them, they will be in a position to do just as they like. It is thus the whole of Major. Atkinson’s policy plays into the hands of the monopolists. Reduce the Legislative Council to 35, that means to make them autocratic; reduce the number of members in the Lower House to 70, and the honorarium to £l5O, that means no poor man can ever again get into Parliament. Never yet was submitted to a New Zealand Parliament proposals which were better calculated to destroy democracy and play into the hands of monopoly than the policy submitted by Major Atkinson, and it is very likely to be carried.

FREETRADE. It is most remarkable that Freetraders desire Protection whenever their own interests are concerned. The Timaru Herald is an outspoken advocate of Freetrade, but it belongs to an Association of papers which have secured Protection for themselves. The Timaru people are crying out for a good Liberal paper, but owing to the Protection given to the Herald £250 would require to be paid down in cash before a new paper that would get the Press Association’s telegrams could be started. Is not this a villainous system of Protection which secures to the Herald a monopoly ? In the same way the Christchurch Telegraph is a violent Freetrader, but it set up a terrible howl one day last week. because printing was done by prison labor in Lyttelton. Now why should not printing be done by prison labor? Why should not prisoners there work at that trade as well as at anything else ? Just because the prisoners at Lyttelton were doing some of the work which Christchurch printers might have done, and the Christchurch Telegraph wants Protection for the printing trade from prison labor. Is it not most extraordinary that while the Christchurch Telegraph wants Protection from prison labor, it denounces the idea of giving Protection to cabinetmakers, bookmakers, coachbuilders, and others from the cheap labor of other countries. The reason is because the Editor of the .Telegraph cannot see beyond the range of his own miserable little interest. He cannot take a glance into wider fields and see that other industries are languishing because the work is done by cheap labor in countries where the rate of wages are as near starvation point as possibly can be.