NOTES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2386, 23 July 1892, Page 2

NOTES.

Mr Scobie Mackenzie says that Mr Ballance had a deficit of £1,000,000, when he was in the Grey-Government, and half a million deficit when he was in the Stout-Vogel Government. There is not a syllable of truth in this. In 188 G the Stout-Vogel Government brought in a measure to increase the customs duties, but Mr Scobie Mackenzie, who was then supporting them, raised the cry of '• Keep the Ministry in and their measures out." This was done, their financial proposals were thrown out, and in 1887 they had a defiicit of £92,000. Now Mr Mackenzie was the very man who was chiefly to blame for this deficit, yet he does not scruple to say that it was half a million. Mr Mackenzie also predicts that Mr Ballance will have a deficit nex*, year, but he generally proves himself a false prophet, so no one notices what he says. He prophosied last year that the Government were " galloping to a deficit," but they walked liezurely in bending under the burden of a very heavy surplus, so what Mr Scobie Mackenzie says may be taken with a grain of salt. The Hon. Mr Ballance in his financial statement said that he had reduced the public debt of the colony by £117,000. This the Opposition would not believe, and so a return was laid on the tables of the House, on the motion of Mr Saunders, showing the increase or decrease in the public debt of the colony during the last 11 years. The following are the figures : Year, Treasurer. Increase. Decrease. 187!) Ballance £571,500 1880 Grey-Atkinson 4,815,400 188 L Atkinson 1,61(5,300 1882 Atkinson 410,400 188;J Atkinson 1168,i>00 18S4 Atkinson 1,(554,100 1885 Atkinson-Vogel 1,.->5:>,411 188(5 Vogel 2,015,500 1887 Vogel 07,581 1888. Atkinson 1,01(5,784 )88j) /Vtkinson 1,(51 (5,(513 18'.)0 Atkinson 2<)2,<K)o 181)1 Atkinson-Ballance 102,400 18112 Ballance £117,282 Returns like these are taken from the books of the Treasury, and are made out by the clerks, who, of course, are responsible, yet the Opposition do not believe this, and Sir John Hall raised a question of privilege on the ground that the return was incorrect: in other words he wished to show that it had bwen " cooked." Sir John Hall said he did not want it to go to the county that Mr Ballance had reduced the public debt by £117,000, when he had actually increased it by £:}84,.'»11. That is the sore point. The Tories do not want it to go to the country that the Government had decreased the public debt, and they are thus trying to throw dust in the people's eyes. Sir John Hall, however, was def'eaited, <$ voting for the Government, and 33 against them. Recently we directed attention t-o tlje fact that the purchasers of Jfiyprsfea and other such properties would be placed in an awkward position under the Land and Income Tax, as it was possible they might have to pay taxation on property they did not own. They have paid lo percent, and the other So per cent, remains unpaid but no mortgage has been registered, and the Land and Income Tax Act recognises only registered mortgages. We are now in a position to state that, as we suggested recently, this matter will be dealt with in an amendment to the Act which will be u.tijQ.dueed this session. The purchasers of sucii properties will only have to pay taxation on amount they have paid on their land, and the sellers will be made to pay on their interest in it, This will be good news for the purchasers of'RiversJea : but it will not be necessary for then) t(, thank Mr Rhodes for it,

Mr Rhodes has been occupying a very large amount of space in Parliament this session. Three afternoons, if not more, have now been taken up with what he himself has called personal matters. Two afternoons were taken up vitj; ,t,he debenture question, Mr Rhodes's greai grievance _ bei"g_ that, his ''political opponent-" g.ot j»formation which he could not get. On that point two afternoons were wasted. The next afternoon was wasted on something about scrip. It appears that Mr Rhodes, like the Hon, Sir

White was trafficking in land scrip and Mr Meredith put a question on the order paper demanding inquiries into it. Mr Rhodes made a personal explanation in which he claimed to have acted bona fide, and in ignorance of the law. That is good. Mr Rhodes a lawyer and a lawmaker pleading ignorance of the law. However, Mr Rolleston says Mr Rhodes's case was very different from those of the Honorable Mr Mr White, and we shall accept his statement as true. He has asserted that there was nothing dishonorable in Mr Rhodes's action, and shall leave it so, but it is rather ominous that Mr Meredith still persists in following up the matter. No doubt it will all come out yet, but in the meantime we may say that a part of Mr Rhodes's defence was rather peculiar. He abused the Government for not having supplied him with some information, but the Government say they had nothing; to do with it ; they say that when appealed to by the ControllerGeneral they refused to have anything to do with it. The matter is at present mixed up and we shall await further developements.