The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1888. VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1737, 15 May 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1888. VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

In his recent speech in Temuka Mr Rhodes admitted that the village settlement system had proved a success in Canterbury, but expressed doubts as to the North Island settlements. It will be remembered that it was the North Island settlements which were so much condemned during last 1 election. The reason was because these settlements were very far away, and people down here had no means of knowing whether the statements were right or wrong. It is now becoming known that these settlements are just as successful as any other. Mr H. Kavanagh, who has the supervision of Buch settlements, recently supplied the Auckland Herald with information respecting them, and it is to the effect that they are very successful. As proof of the quality of the soil, Mr Kavanagh brought samples of its products with him, and the following is what the Herald says of them: —" A maize cob of well-developed structure, although not of extraordinary size, grown by Mr Hansworth, is among-t the exhibits; and another cob of 90 days' maize, grown by Mr Bradley, shows the suitability of the place for this early development. Some splendid Hobart potatoes, grown by Mr Outlin, would do credit to any show, not only on account of their great size, but their fine formation. An onion 16 inches in circumference is forwarded by Mr Woodham as a specimen, not the largest of his own growth; and a splendidly-developed carrot, grown by Mr Hansworth, is also amongst the few specimens brought down by Mr Kavanagh. He has also a parsnip, which is chiefly remarkable as showing the great depth of the soil in which it grew. It has a long root of whip-like appearance upwards of 2 feeb in length, and Mr Kavanagh informs us that he had another which measured 3 feet 4 inches in length, but this was broken in his saddle bag while being brought down. The village settlers of this district were exhibitors of vegetables at the Kaitaia Agricultural Show, and obtained against all comers eight first and two second prizes." And yet down here, where we know no better, interested politicians will try to make us believe the settlement was a f'ailuro. The Ashburton Guardian says : —"Mr . "VV. 0. Smith, member for Woodville, * when addressing his constituents the other day, referred to the disparaging remarks made by the Minister of Lands upon North Island settlements, and stated that if the Minister had travelled up his way he would have found cause to change his tune. The men who are located on settlements in the north may not be in every case suitable settlers, but taking the majority there are neither street corner loafers nor incapables, so far as we can learn, settled on land under Mr Ballance's scheme. As time goes on, and as prospects improve, it will be found that the continued establishment of village settlements on suitable soils and localities will be followed by most beneficial results to the colony generally." This is the sort of Minister of Lands we have now —a man who does not scorn to descend to misrepresentation to discredit the grandest system of settling people on the land ever dreamt of—and it was about thie man Mr Ehodes raved so much in his speech at Temuka. Now, we shall ask these gentlemen one plain question —Would it not be better to spend a few thousands, as Mr Ballance did, on settling these people on the land than to let them go away to Victoria? Mr Ehodes sftid he was certain that Mr Eichardson will continue the village settlement scheme. Has be done anything in that direction so far ? He has not! He has done his best to drive away the settleip placed on the land by Mr Ballance by not keeping faith with them in cany- j

ing out the arrangements under which they took up the land, and if he continues in office for three years he will succeed in doing much mischief. The present Ministry are not much, but by far and away the very worst amongst them is Mr Eichardson, the Minister of Lands. He is pig-headed, obstinate, and narrow-minded in his views, and it is certainly astounding how Sir Harry Atkinson keeps him in the position.

PROTECTION. Mb Ehodes mades his views on this question very clear to his constituents. He said that more revenue would be required, but the property tax must not be increased because it would " check the flow of foreign capital into the ceuntry," and it therefore followed that the Customs duties must be raised. He. would, he said, be in favor of increasing the Customs, but would "oppose any duties for protective purposes, not on the grounds that they are in themselves objectionable, but because all protective duties in so far as they exclude foreign goods fail to produce revenue." And for sayiug this Mr Rhodes was loudly applauded —in fact, it was the only thing he said which was applauded. Now, would those who applauded Mr Ehodes kindly reflect on the meaning of his language, and ,ask themselves, Was it a sensible thing for them to applaud it? Mr Ehodes said in effect: "I will not vote for any duties which will promote local industries, because if local industries were thus developed we would make the goods in the colony,and they would not then be imported. Theresult would be that we would notget so much revenue as we do now, and the property tax would have to be increased." Mr Ehodes stated his objection to Protection openly, honestly,and fearlessly. He said " men of property must not pay any more taxes, but the poor, miserable swagger and the unfortunate people who are trying to bring up a family on the paltry wages they can mate now, mast be taxed." It is a monstrous, inhuman thing to say that the taxes must be increased on the poor but not on the rich, while it is nothing short of a species of madness to think that we must continue to import goods in order to be able to raise revenue, But this is exactly the whole aim and object of the Freetraders. They are afraid that Protection would result in themselves having to pay more through the Property Tax. There is where the shoe pinches. The Otago Daily Times told them the other day, on the authority of Hayfcer's year book, that a protective tariff like that in vogue in Victoria would lose them half their revenue. It said that people in this colony pay a tax of 20 per cent, on imported goods, while the people of Victoria pay only a tax of 10 per cent. That is what is troubling Freetraders. They have their haods down deep in the pockets of the poor, and they do not want to take them out. They are making the poor pay the greater part of the taxes for them, and they want them to pay more now, and it serves the people right. Mr Ehodes. was not very happy in the reference he made to Victoria. He said the peopje there were clamoring for more Protection, and that even the farmers were asking for it. Is not tbis wonderful ? How stupid of them not to have got tired of it, ho as to give Freetraders a handle. But no, they are actually giving Protectionists a handle by showing that Protection has agreed with them. Is Mr Ehodes really so innocent that he cannot see he is arguiog against himself ? It was the same in finance, and on the land question, and on other questions—his --own arguments were all so nice and so handy for refuting his own contentions. But he is guileless and youug, and his ideas ou politics are not yet developed, while his capacity for coming to logical conclusions has not yet matured. But he was applauded, and he received a unanimous vote of confidence, and he went away fully convinced that every one preaeut at the meeting believed in the doctrines he laid down. Eeviewing his whole speech briefly now, we find that he said—lst, That the . Stout-Vogel Government had " forestalled " and overdrawn accounts; whereas, according to Sir Harry Atkinson's Financial Statement, they left sufficient money to go on with till December, 1889. 2nd. He said the Stout- Vogel Government had hindered settlement on account of thoir perpetual-leasing fad, whereas he showed himself that there were seven persons looking for perpetual leases to the one looking for cash freeholds. 3rd. He said men of property must not pay any more taxation on their properties, but the starving poor must pay more taxes on the imported goods they consume, and ,no encouragement must be given to local industries, so that we may continue to import goods. 4th. He instanced Victoria as a frightful example of the vieiousness of Protection, by shpwing that Victoria was not tired ot it, but was asking for more of it. Stephen Blackpool, in " Hard Times," used to say it was all a muddle to him because he could not get rid of a drunken wife to marry the "best lass living or dead." Politics appear to be in an equally muddled state according to Mr Khodes'a conception of them.