SIR ROBERT STOUT AND THE GOVERNMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1894, 21 May 1889, Page 3

SIR ROBERT STOUT AND THE GOVERNMENT.

Wellington, May 17. Sir Robert Stout has addiesssd a long letter to the New Zealand Times in reply to that journal's strictures on hi-# reraaiks relative to Government “ parsimony.” In his letter Sir Robet' says:—“You slat® flat when the late Government Rft office there wa# « deficit of £528,000. Now, this is ridiculously untrue. The deficit up to Slflt March, 1887, was £92 293. We were not responsible for the deficit at the end of the 31st March, 1888. According to our Budget, we proposed to meet the expected oeficit by economies and new taxation. We were denied this opportunity, and those who refused to meet the wants of the colony bv proper economies and taxation—wh proposed both are responsible. in October, when the present Government took office, they knew tha revenue for the years 188 T-88 could not meet the expenditure, and yet in their Budget they made no sufficient provision for it. On the Ist' November, 1887, when the Colonial Treasurer delivered his Statement he said — l l have already informed the Committee that it is estimated the expenditure of the Consedated fund during the year ending 31st March, 1888, would exceed the revenue by £389.205 if the expenditure proceeded at the old rate and further taxation were not imposed.’ If we had remained in offic® we would have done both, and net have had tha largo buuj added to the funded debt of Iho colony, which the pobcy of the present Government necessitated. What economies the preseot Government hove made and on what lines the new taxation was imposed I need oot dwell on. Our taxation proposals were denounced as atrocious. The colony saw and feT in 1888 a taxation beyond what we proposed, and the economies were neither systematic or just. All I care to show, however, is that our deficit whs but £92,292, whilst the deficit of our successors was £532,074. I have omitted the land fund from our deficit, as it never was usual to bring it under Ihe ordinary revenue account, but if that be done the deficit would be increased by £54,263. Now I ask the most biassed parly politician that ever read your paper, Is it fair to charge us with a deficit that took place at the end of the 81st March, 1888, when we ceased to bo Ministers in October, 1887, and when, if our policy of economv and fresh taxation had ever been carried out there must have been no deficit? The summary of our proposals can be learned from this passage in iho Budget:-“The proposed expenditure being £4.071,904, and the anticipated revenue £4,156,184, a surplus of £84,880 is the result. As regards (he £92,800 deficiency of last year, although I hope to be able to pay it ofl this year out of the surplus and savings on voles, I do not like to undertake to do. I propose asking that it stand over until the end of the session. If the year’s transactions enable it to be sooner extinguished, as I hope may be the case, I shall be glad to pay it off.” (Page 15, B. 61, session 1887.) What, then, becomes of your audacious statement that we are responsible for the deficit of our successors % I consider one of the greatest blots on the present Administration is, that, knowing there would be a large deficit if fresh taxation were not imposed, they did not propose new taxation in ISB7. So much for your ariticism on the late Administration. Now a few words about your personal criticism on myself. I am very careless about your opinions about my views or my actions, and if you bad not dealt with my action I would never have troubled you with any correspondence. You have wrongly assumed that in my letter to Mr Joyce I was criticising the acts of the present Administration. I was referring to the Young New Zeeland Party; nor did I say one word against economy. 1 objected to parsimony. You seem to see no distinction between the two. Economy consists in the proper and careful spending of money; parsimony is the withholding of expenditure. If parsimony had been the policy of the colony in the past I doubt if it would ever have been anything but a sheep-walk. There would have been no towns, no education system, no direct service, no telegraphs, no railways ; in fact, no enterprise. Parsimony thinks the highest aim in life is to accumulate money. Economy believes that »__i • :tu u

wisely spending money, looking with hope to the future, is a higher aim in life. I favor economy, and to parsimony I am opposed, and I believe, so far as the idea of parsimony has taken root amongst us, it has been injurious. TVe have seriously injured this colony by repeating the hated word ‘ Depression,’ so that people from a distance have believed us bankrupt We have lost thousands of our population. We Lave frightened hundreds from coming hither. Immigration has been stopped, and a policy of pessimism preached, and this is the result of making a god of parsimony. What the Conservative reaction has done I need not now state fully. Let me just point out a few

things. (1) The honorarium has been reduced ; (2) the number of members has been reduced; (3) Ministers salaries have been curtailed ; (4) aid to high schools withdrawn ; (5) village settlement scheme abandoned; (6) perpetual lease system destroyed j (7) small runs scheme destroyed; (8) the tenure of pastoral leases largely increased and certain runs made secure for twenty - one years; (9) valuable land sold at ten and twelve shillings per acre without settlement conditions ; (10) dummyism is left rampant without check pr hindrance ; (11) attempts , to weaken the State system of education ; , (12) last, but not least, £13,000,000 worth ■ of property—our State railways—have ■ been handed over to three irresponsible ■ ! ,Civil servants. If these be not a good i Conservative record | do not |cno<v what j it is, and all in two sessions top. However, the time of reckoning will come, 3ub|; as it came to those who in 1877 sup--1 ported the PpbUo Works policy and would i not listen to any and tf>on vi ipm r their pockets were touched, cried opt and i denounced the author of the policy as if

he were alone guilty. The very many journals that ai.ied, supported, and clamored for the Public Worba policy in 1870, were those who denounced it in 1887-88, and so it will bo with tbo new Conservative reaction five years after this, if not sooner. When our l.nd is gone and littie settlement is prov.dcd, there wi 1 bo denunciation of that policy which is in the ascendant now, and which the would-be denouncers are now supporting.”