THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 1893. MR SANDFORD’S SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2454, 21 January 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 1893. MR SANDFORD’S SPEECH.

On last Wednesday evening MrSandford, one of the labor members for Christchurch, addressed his constituents, and made a very sensible speech. No doubt the opponents of labor members will be very much disappointed. There was no blood and thunder; no class cry; no violence; no anything that would distinguish the speaker from an ordinary supporter of the Government. The honest truth is that the labor members have on all occasions shown themselves to be very reasonable, prudent men, quite equal to the average run of members of Parliament. Mr Sandford has found, during hisjshort time in Parliament, that that no single member will get his own way, and that whatever ideas one may have he must submit to the will of the majority. This is only right. We should be in a pretty state of confusion if everyone got his own way. Referring to the financial statement, he said that the Opposition tried to embarrass the Government by appealing to the labor members to take the duty oft' the necessaries of life, but they did not succeed. The revenue from the necessaries of life duty came to £311,410, of which £220,000 was contributed by tea and sugar, and if Mr

Daliance took that off he would not have been able to carry out his self-reliant policy. He would have been driven to go to London for a loan, and to that the labor members objected very strongly. This was received with applause. One of the first cries raised against the Government was that the labor members would force another loan, so that money might be spent extravagantly, but time has proved that the labor members are most determined opponents of borrowing. Instead of borrowing Mr Ballance took £200,000 from the consolidated revenue, and has employed it in making reproductive public works. Mr Sandford defended the Land and Income Tax, and proceeded to speak of the Land Question. The present Government, he said, were doing their best in the cause of bona fide settlement, and it was remarkable that the Opposition objected to render the making of a false declaration penal—that is, liable to a term of imprisonment. This is a point which ought not to be lost sight of. Making a declaration is like taking an oath, and in the eyes of the law is perjury, yet the Tories of New Zealand object to imprison one who perjures himself as regards land. This proves dishonesty of purpose, to say the least of it. Mr Sandford objects to the leases of 999 years, and hopes the Act will be soon amended in that direction. Yet he favors perpetual leasing. This is inconsistency. In our opinion the 999 years lease is the best tenure of land. It is far preferable to freehold, and no one in future will buy land for cash. The result will be that the land will remain in the hands of the Crown, and the rents, though small, will help to lighten taxation. On the whole Mr Saudford’s speech showed that he is a thoughtful student of politics, and that no one need be afraid that he will do anything detrimental to the interests of the industrial portion of the colony.

THE CHEVIOT ESTATE

In his speech to his constituents Mr Sandford dwelt at some length on the purchase of the Cheviot estate. In reply to the cry that the Cheviot estate will be a white elephant in the hands of the Government, he quoted the opinion of Mr Henry Redwood, a resident of Nelson, who is well qualified to speak on the subject. Mr Redwood said—

“ This block of land is capable of settling hundreds of families on at present, and more and more in the distant future, besides paving the way to the settlement of the intermediate blocks between Christchurch and Cheviot.” He continues : —“ I earnestly trust the Government of the day may be permitted to exercise their power in this direction until they have acquired other valuable estates lying between Blenheim and Cheviot, the locking up of which is hindering, and has hindered very materially, the progress of settlement equally with the extension of the railway northward.”

This is certainly satisfactory, but Mr Sandford brought further evidence in support of his contention that the Government has got a bargain. He said — “ Thirteen years ago the owner had appraised the whole at an average of VI an acre, and since that date at least £OO,OOO had been spent on improvements of a substantial character.”

Mr Sandford also read the following telegram from the Premier—- “ The Cheviot estate has been duly taken in accordance with the Act by Order-in-Council, Government only awaiting arrangements for the trustees to remove the stock to open it up for settlement. It is intended to give facilities for Special Settlement Associations, Village Homestead Associations, and Co-operative Associations. The object of the Government is not to obtain profit, but simply to recoup the Treasury for the cost of the land, including roads, either in the way of cash or of a rental equal to 5 per cent. The administration of the land is by law in the hands of the Land Tax Department, but the Minister for Lands will submit a scheme of settlement. You may depend upon it that the land will be disposed of in the interests of lona file settlement. —J. Ballance.” This we regard as very satisfactory proof that the land is worth the money, and that the Government intend to settle it in the interests of the colony. Not only that, but Mr Redwood anticipates that it will lead to further settlement. In any case the Government will not lose, and the country is certain to benefit by it. We want settlement extended, but if we are afraid of taking over an estate like the Cheviot we may as well say no more about bursting up large estates.

TTMARTI harbor board. It is hardly worth while to notice the dying actions of the Timaru Harbor Board, but a little incident which happened will show the reliance that can be placed on the chairman’s words. At the last meeting the majority of the Board allocated every penny of available money within reach for the purpose of paying for the new vessel. Even the insurance fund of the Mana was collared, and to this Mr Flatman objected, on the ground that it would leave the vessel uninsured. The chairwian said Mr Flatman was quite right, but the money would not be used until April, 1891, as it would be kept back from the contractors for six mouths after the arrival of the vessel. Subsequently Mr. Acton said that all the money would have to be sent home within a month, with the exception of £ISOO, which would be kept back until the vessel had'bnen properly tested. The amount of the insurin'? o fund of the Mana is £3870, and the aipouM that is to be kept back is £ISOO, yet when Mr Flatman complained that the Mana would be uncovered in case of accident Mr Acton told him the money would be kept in hand until April, 1894. This speaks for it e >f" on the Mana is gone. . ... ~ Another little ulster which we would like to draw attention to 13 this : Mr A.cton has written letters to this p. !l -per denying that he had ever said that he thought the new vessel would shift the shinMe across the breakwater, Why did not Mr Acton bring this matter up at the last meeting ! The editor of this paper attended purposely, thinking that Mr Acton would make a statement 011 the subject, but he held his tongue and never said one word on the matter. Why did he do that? Simply because he knew very well that the members of the board would remind him that he did say it, and he knew that by bringing it up he would only make matters worse. He therefore wisely let it alone. No one can therefore doubt that he did say it. We have asked several members, and they all agree that he did say that he thought all along that the new vessel would shift the shingle across the breakwater. This is the man who said the ratepayers could be no more trusted with matters relating to the harbor than they could be trusted with navigating a ship to Sydney.