Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1891. MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE’S SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2281, 17 November 1891, Page 2

Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1891. MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE’S SPEECH.

In another column will be found Mr Scobie Mackenzie’s speech, at Mr Rolleston’s banquet, in Christchurch, last week. Mr Mackenzie is the orator par excellence of the opposition. He is the man of whom we hear so much ; the hope the pride, the Demosthenes of the party, and consequently we have published his speech in full just to show our readers what manner of man he is. We have no doubt they will very readily be able to take his measure. In his whole speech there is not a. single fact. He makes all sorts of accusations against the Government, but in no instance does he bring forward a singie fact to prove his assertion. It is very easy, for any . one to make statements, but it is another thing to prove them. Mr Mackenzie has made statements but has forgotten to prove them. His proofs are always lies. He says the Premier said all taxation should be borne by the land, Mr Mackenzie knows well this is a lie. There has been formed in Wellington a society for the purpose of furthering the doctrines of Henry George. It is called the “ Single tax society,” and a deputation of its members waited on the premier to. .urge upon him the desirability of adopting their peculiar views. The premier said he sympathised with their views but that it was impossible to carry them out at present. Now the only ground Mr Mackenzie had for stating that Mr Ballance had said, that all taxation should become by the land was the mere fact that Mr Ballance said he sympathised with the views of the’single tax deputation, yet he has the unspeakable impudence to attempt to frighten farmers with this cry. Another thing Mr Mackenzie said was that the Government had a splendid opportunity of reducing the taxation, but they had failed to do it. This is another lie 1 They have reduced the taxation on farmers by one-half; they have lifted off the commercial classes £50,000 in the shape of reduced postage, they have changed the incidence of taxation, so that industries that cannot pay dividends need not pay taxation. Hitherto a farmer could not add a chain of fence of the value of £1 to his property without being taxed for it, but now he can make, all sorts of improvements without any increase of taxation, while a losing industrial concern need not pay any tax at all. Take, for instance, our butter and cheese' factories. For years these industries were losing their capital instead of paying dividends, yet they had to pay Property Tax, but under the new taxation they would not have to pay any taxation at all. In the face of these facts Mr Mackenzie has audacity to say the Government did not relieve industry ef taxation, because large estates must now pay their fair share. ’ Mr Mackenzie ridicules the idea of putting people on the land, because there is more poverty on the land than anywhere else. If so, we want to know why Mr Mackenzie has five runs of 60,700 acres, with 29,600 sheep on them ? He evidently thinks people will consent to remain the slaves of the likes of him. Then he said the present Government were as tyrannical as Henry YIIL, and that they lived in an atmosphere of corruption and extravagance. All this is very fine, but where is the proof ? Has Mr Mackenzie given a single figure to prove extravagance ? He has not, and until he does, his unsupported testimony will not have much weight. Mr Mackenzie says the Government were the result of an unhappy accident—that is, the strikes. Mr MacKenzie and his friends brought on the accident. Instead of showing sympathy with the strikers at the time, they used all means they had at hand to crush them, and now they are surprised that the working men have turned on them. Even now, when they ought to know better, what are they doing ! A.re they trying to conciliate them I They are talking about truckling to the mob ; charging the Government with following the lead of the “ ignorant masses ” and heaping insult after insult on working men. To us this is delightful, as the working men will henceforth see that the Tories look upon them with contempt. We have published Mr Scobie Mackenzie’s speech now; we have thus given our readers the opportunity of hearing the other side. We think we ought to apologise for publishing such senseless trash, but at the same time we trust they will regard it as a desire on our part to give both sides fair play. We shall publish Mr Rollestons speech also, as soon as we find room for it. The publication of these speeches mil do more good to the Government than anything could, as then the people will be able to see how little there is in all the charges, jpudc by the oppisition,

i UNSEEMLY proceedings. They narrowly escaped having a political row at the lunch given at the Christchurch Show. The’Hon R. Pharazyn in responding to the toast of the Parliament of New Zealand, speaking for the Council, remarked that it was threatened with extinction by the Knights of Labour and the Maritime Council, who did not like the Council but were. like burglars. When sentence was pronounced it was not likely the judge would be popular with the burglar, but a threatened institution lived long. There again is the insulting sneer at working men. This is the. same Pharazyn who was twice fined for impersonation at an election of a member of Parliament in Wellington. He went and voted at two or three bboths, and was let off easily the first time, but he did the same thing at the next election, and was fined, we believe, £IOO. He; too, ought to hxve forfeited his seat in the Legislative Council, but the shameless Tories kept him there. This is the man who compares the Liberals to burglars. Mr Seddon was present, and, speaking immediately afterwards, he protested against the introductson of politics, and also against members of Parliament being , characterised as burglars. The country ' he said, had elected a majority on his side, and the majority must rule. It is scarcely credible, but yet it is according to the Christchurch papers; a fact, that there 1 were cries of “ No, no,” ‘when Mr Seddon said the majority must rule. This is really extraordinary; but it shows the 1 temper of the wealty, classes. They evidently want to establish an aristocratic form of. Government, so that the minority may rule.