THE Temuka Leader TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1,1891. THE TEA DUTY

Temuka Leader, Issue 2287, 1 December 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1,1891. THE TEA DUTY

THE TEA DUTY. If the Government are no worse than Mr Rhodes pictured them, we can only conclude that they are the most blameless executive we have ever had in New Zealand. He told us how the elections resulted in the defeat of the Atkinsonians, but he said not a word about the corrupt unconstitutional manner, in which by the practice of gross deception, they persuaded the Governor to make six fresh appointments to the Council. It was peculiar that Mr Rhodes forgot all about this when his recollection of the smallest fault of the present Ministry was so clear. Passing over the Bryce episode, which is too small to bother with just now, we come to the first point Mr Rhodes made against the Government. This was that the Government had a surplus, that the Opposition tried to get the duty taken off tea, and that the Government refused to do it. This is very good. The Hon. John Ballance took the duty off tea when Colonial Treasurer in the Grey Ministry. Sir Harry Atkinson, assisted by Mr Rhodes put it on again, practically to I provide charitable aid subsidies, and J pow Mr Rhodes blames Mr Ballance •

because he did not take it off at the dictation of his political enemies. The cry is too thin ; anyone can see through it. If ever we get the tea duty taken off, it will be the Ballance, and not the i Rhodes party who will do it. We regret we have not room for the reply Mr Ballance made to this charge on the 10th of last July. He silenced Mr Rolleston and Sir John Hall by quoting from their former speeches in which they opposed the reduction of the tea duty. Mr Rolleston said, “I should like to know what would be the opinion of the outside creditor, heavily indebted as we are, at our dropping £IOO,OOO taxation (2d on tea, Id on sugar) which is easily collected, and which it is the greatest humbug to say presses heavily on the working classes.” Sir John Hall said, “ An honorable gentleman has shown that the working classes would not be benefited by the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar, but that the employers of labor were the persons who would mainly derive the benefit, I am of that opinion,” Mr Ballance gave other quotations from their speeches, but we have not room for more. Is it not strange that Mr Rolleston and Sir' John Hall, who then regarded it humbug to say the working men would be benefited, have changed now when its suits them. The following quotation from Hansard will show what was thought of this cry in the House :-r— ,

Mr Ballance—“ Did we ever before hear from the members on the other side of the House, or did we ever see on their part any real and practical effort made to reduce the duties on the necessaries of life for the benefit of she working man ?”

An hon. member—“ Never,” Another hon. member—“ Hardly ever,”

And of course all laughed. That is how this cry was ridiculed in Parliament, where we are told the working man is all powerful, and where he dictates the policy of the Government. Throughout the colony now the cry is raised that the Government are simply acting in obedience to the instructions of the Trades-unions, and the Knights of Labor, yet the same party who want a section of the community to believe this, are also striving to make the working men believe that the Government are working in the interests of banks and building societies. In order to lighten the burden on banks, building societies, &c., the villianous Government will not take the tax off tea, This is a most extraordinary confusion of ideas, but we believe if the truth were known the Government are doing their best for the benefit of the colony. Before taking off the tea duty they want to see whether they can make both ends meet, and as soon as they find they can, we undertake to say that the tea duty will be taken off.

THE SEVENTH MINISTER. Mu Rhodes made a very strong point against the Government with regard to the payment of the seventh Minister —the Hon. J. G. Ward. . He admitted that Mr Ward was a very able administrator, but he objected to pay him a salary, on the ground that it was against the law. “ Three years ago,” says Mr Rhodes, “We cut down the number of Ministers to six, and the Government should have repealed that Act before paying a seventh Minister.” Here again Mr Rhodes conveniently forgot a very salient point. He told the truth so far as he . went, but he forgot to say that the Atkinson Government paid the seventh Minister without even the sanction of Parliament. Our readers will no doubt remember that there were talks of prosecuting Mr Mitchelson (who acted as Premier in the absence of Sir Harry Atkinson) for having paid himself out of the public funds without any authority to do it at all. Instead of acting in this stealthy way the present Government put the salary of the seventh Minister on the Estimates, and the House voted in favor of it. We ask Mr Rhodes to say whether this is true, and if so, does he think that the action of the present Government was more deserving of censure than that of the late Ministry ? We shall allow our readers to judge for themselves. The argument that the number of Ministers should be reduced because the number J of' members had been has nothing in it. What has the number of members, to,do with the work of attending to the departments of Government. Nothing whatever. Ministers may be just as busy With only 50 members in the House as they would be had there been 100 there. There is a good and sound and solid argument in favor of reducing the numbef“ J of Ministers to six, but as Mr Rhodes does not seem to know it, we do not think it our duty to remind him of it. At any rate, if the late Government found it necessary to have not only a seventh Minister, but also an eight Minister, in the person of the Hon, Mr Stevens, (without portfolio), the present Government certainly ought to be pardoned for having seven. The present Government came in new to the work, and it stands to reason that for a time it came more difficult to them than it would have been to the continuous Ministry who have spent almost all their lives in office. If, therefore, the late Atkinson Government consisted of eight Ministers there is nothing very wrong in the present Ministry consisting of seven. Let us be fair and just at any rate, and look at both sides of the question.

FURTHER BORROWING. Mb Rhodes prophesied that next year the Government would come down with another loan. It was, we think, injudicious on the part of Mr Rhodes to adopt the role of a prophet, because if his prognostications are not fulfilled the result will be discredit to himself. If at any future time he attempts to prophesy again he will find that like Cassandra no one will believe him even when he speaks the truth. At present the Ministry have shown no inclination to borrow. Their wildest dream so far has been to borrow some small sums to assist in settling the people on the land. But there is another reason why Mr Rhodes should be silent on the question of borrowing until it becomes absolutely necessary for him to speak. His friends are the leviathan borrowers of the colony. In 1888 Mr Rhodes went into Parliament pledged to resist further borrowing, but he was not there a month before ■ he swallowed a loan of £2,400,000 from his friend Sir Harry Atkinson. At the same time Sir Robert Stout said the Stout- Government had determined on borrowing only £2,000,000 in ten years, but Sir Harry Atkinson borrowed that sura in ten months, and what is more to the point spent it, for in 1889, just two years afterwards, Mr Fergus, in his famous Queenstown speech, foreshadowed another loan. A cry was raised from end to end of the colony, and the Atkinson Ministry had to draw i in their horns and give up all ideas of another loan. Still it would -appear that they could not live without borrowing, for in their financial statement they stated that they would borrow money locally for the purposes of land settlement. They were kicked out of office nearly twelve months ago, but their successors have so far said nothing about another loan, with his own party having such a history for loan borrowing it does not appear to us that it was • wise on the part of Mr Rhodes to stir up dirty water. It is very probable that the present Government will have to borrow more money, but then Mr Bryce said a few days before retiring from Parliament, that he was not opposed to borrowing under certain conditions, and even Mr Rhodes himself tells us that he is not opposed to borrowing for the purpose of settling the people on the lan. Looking at Mr Rhodes prophesy, therefore, we cannot see that there is anything very alarming it.