THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1893. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2513, 8 June 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1893. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

We desire once more to tender our sympathy to the Hon. W. Rolleston. Miles Malone, the illustrious tailor, was not jnor© “blue mouldy for the want of a baitin’ ” than Mr Rolleston is for the want of making a speech, but, sad to say, no one has asked him. north and south, but alas and alack a uJJ I ,' n invitation has been given him, and now, finding all his chances gone, he has taken to w riting to the Press. Referring to the speech of President Cleveland, in a letter to the Chri.-tchurch Press of last Tuesday, Mr Rolleston says:— “ The speech is wonderfully instructive, a- coming from the newly-t looted Chie of the great Democracy on the main features which underlie real popular government. Those features are the equality of all classes of the community before the law, individual freedom as against banded faction, freedom of thought, freedom of action so long as these do not interfere with the liberties of our fellows, the degrading influences o paternalism and f'tate interference, with all its unwholesome progeny, “ which are the bane of Republican institutions and a constant peril of our Government by the people,’ the necessity for tarilf reform superseding the wrongs and selfishness of a protective policy, and, finally, the upholding of the great principle that ‘ necessity for revenue to support Government furn'shes the only justification for taxing the people.’ May I also ask your contemporary if it complies with my suggestion, to forward a copy of the issue containing this address to Sir Robert Stout, who talks a good deal about Democracy, but so far I am aware, never condescends to explain what he means by tt.e term. I venture to think that President Cleveland’s address contains a simple and masterly exposition of first principles which should guide popular government, snd it may not be without its use to our Ministers in their attempt at‘light and leading ’ of the public, even if it be hopeless to expect for the present any relief from the • perversion of taxing power ’ of which the colony is the victim.” Mr Rolleston thinks that these being the of % Present of

America, every one will accept them without question. The first thing we would like t« impress upon the brain of Mr Rolleston is that this colony has not copied American institutions so far, and is not likely to do so in the future. The next is that we in this colony enjoy a far more democratic constitution than the United States; that we have sense enough to understand what we want and sufficient intelligence to know how to get it; and that platitudes and generalities such as those laid down by President Cleveland sound well in the mouths of humbugs, but never fit in when put into practice. Let us take them in turn. Equality of all before the law.” When did Sir Robert Stout or any Now Zealand Liberal advocate anything antagonistic to this? Never. The party whom Mr Rolleston is leading has at present, as one of the planks of its platform, the giving of two votes to men of property. Perhaps Mr Rolleston means that cattle and sheep, like Franklyu’s donkey, should be made equal with men before the law. Sir Robert Stout and the Liberals want to make all men equal by giving each only one vote, but Mr Rolleston and his party want to make men of wealth superior by giving them two votes. This is how Conservative platitudes pan out and gull the unthinking. The next platitude is “ individual freedom against banded faction,” etc. What does this mean ? When did the Liberals attempt to curtail freedom of thought or action ? Never. What the thing means probably is free labor as against the “ banded faction” of trades unions, but as it may mean “ the freedom of the people against the banded factions of monopolists,” we shall pass it by. If we were to make Mr Rolleston appear antagonistic to trades unions, it is possible we may do him an injustice. There is no necessity to do him an injustice; his own utterances are, politically speaking, sufficient to hang him. Coming now to another platitude about “ the degrading influence of paternalism and State interference.’ etc., a rich mine of thought, so to speak, is opened before us. The meaning is that the Government must not interfere in the concerns of men at all. Very well. Nine-tenths of outlaws are made in the interests of property. Let us repeal them, and dismiss our sheep inspectors, our rabbit inspectors, dairy experts, the veterinary surgeons who are to report on the bot-fly, the stock department, and nine-tenths of the Civil Service. Let us repeal the thousand-and-one Acts and Ordinances that have been passed for the protection of property, and then proceed by repealing the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, the Factories Act, the Truck Act, and so on. After this we must dismiss the police,for they are State officers who interfere with us in many ways. In short, we shall not want a Government at all, and we can pack Lord Glasgow home, labelled “Not wanted, as the Colony has decided on not tolerating State interference.” Now what about the degrading influence of paternalism and State interference?” Is not President Cleveland’s wisdom, endorsed by Mr Rolleston, the acme of absurdity ? There is not an Act on the Statute book which does not involve “ paternalism and State interference,” for if they did not the people would make no use of them, and they would become a dead letter. Of course, we know that Mr Rolleston wants the State to interfere as far as the interests of property are concerned; what he objects to is interference with regard to men without property. He believes in rabbits, and scab, and bot-flies being interfered with, but no protection must be given to labor. The sacred rights of property must bo looked after, but labor bureaus, co-operative labor work, factories, etc., are socialistic, and are an abomination. Sir Robert Stout and Liberals think men and women and children who cannot take care of themselves are as fit to be cared for as scabby sheep, or bot-fly blown horses, and that makes all the difference,. With regard to Mr Rolleston’s reference to Protection, we want to know, if such are his views, why is it that he and his followers are everlastingly boasting that our prosperity is due to the late Sir H. Atkinson’s finance ? Sir H. Atkinson, with the help of the Liberal party, and in spite of his own friends, increased the Customs duties, yet here we find Mr Rolleston denouncing those duties, and still telling us they save the country. Could anything be more ridiculous ? Lastly we pojqe to Mr Rolleston’s great principle that only “ necessity should make a Government tax people.” That is Mr RoUestou’s great principle. We have never heard of a Government taxing people for fun, and wa doubt whether people would appreciate any jokjng of that kind. But what Mr Rolleston in aiming at, we presume, is that the present' Government have declared their intention of raising more money by taxation than is necessary to pay for he tbare government of the country, so as to carry on public works and open up the country with the surplus. Mr Richardson, the late Minister of Lands, has denounced this, and advocated another loan of £1,500,000, and probably that is what Mr Rolleston means. Are we going to have another term of borrowing, log-rowing, gnd corruption, or are we to carry on the Goyeroment of the country in the economical way we have been doing lately I Let Mr Rolleston answer, Be is the leader of the Opposition,