POLITICAL NOTES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2530, 18 July 1893, Page 2

POLITICAL NOTES.

Mr Scobie Mackenzie indulged in some Biblical learning in Parliament the other day. Referring to the impropriety of Messrs Cadman and Rees appealing from the Supreme Court to the popular vote, Mr Scobie Mackenzie said that on one memorable occasion the popular vote was appealed to and Barabbas was chosen. This was smart, but not accurate. The two oases are different. In the CadmanRees case the Court gave its decision ; in the Biblical case, Judge Pontius Pilate declined to convict. He said he found no case against the Accused, and gave the Jews their choice as to whom they would liberate, and they liberated Barabbas, the thief and robber. Messrs Cadman and are appealing of their own free will. The Court did its duty, and has nothing to do with suu?eqwmt actions; in the Biblical case, a weak, vaC 1 Hating judge handed a Prisoner, whom he believed innocent, over to the tender mercies of an infuriated populace, whose blind prejudices rendered them incapable of sound judgment. The analogy between thp&yp cases l is incomplete, but if Mr Rees is elected for Auckland, Mr Scobie Mackenzie will not, we believe, admit that Barabbas has been chosen. It is a pity the institution of Trial by Combut it would have suited the case --.aled Under this ancient law, litigants app^.

to arms, and the business of the Court was to see fair play. God was supposed to be on the side of the one who was in the right, so whoever came off victorious won the case. This would have suited the Cad man-Pees dispute admirably, and if one of them were killed the colony would benefit by having one politician less.

The liquor traffic appears to bo the question of questions in politics just now. A temperance conference met in Wellington recently and sent a deputation to the Premier, who talked to them smoothly, and said he believed in the principle of the Direct Veto. Next day a deputation of brewers and publicans waited on him and laid their troubles before him, and he said ha saw them in a new light. One can easily imagine how harrassing all this must be to a Premier who is just getting ready to face a General Election. Cn one side is the vast temperance organisation, ready to vote on one single issue; on the other side the wealth and influence of the liquor traffic party, fighting for its life. “ Selfpreservation is the first law of nature,” and politicians as well as others must

ook to their own safety. “ Which of the two tickets will win V’ appears to be the stumbling block, but this ought not to be so. There is a right and a wrong side to everything. The temperance party want only to give the people the power to say whether they will have licensed public-houves or not, and to refuse that is inconsistent with the one-man-one-vote principle. If the people are competent to elect a member of Parliament, they are competent to know whether they want public-houses or not. No true Liberal can refuse to vote for the direct veto—that is, give the people the power to decide. Why the publicans should object to this is not plain. Do they think the people do not want them 'I They always tell us that the whole agitation is got up by a few crazy fanatics, and that the bulk of the people are on the side of the public-house. In that case, what are they afraid of ? Why don’t they trust the people ?

Mr Bamshaw, who has hitherto been recognised as one of the most docile followers of the Government, has suddenly rounded on them, and now the Tories are jubilant. They call him “Back-bone Earnshaw,” and, though a declared Socialist, they have discovered that he is one of the finest fellows in the world. How easy it is to obtain the good opinion of the Tories, can be seen from this. Mr Earnshaw merely entered an indignant protest against the action of the Government in placing impediments in the way of temperance legislation, but it would appear that he was to some extent mistaken, as it' is now stated that the Government will give facilities for discussing the liquor question. This is the same Mr Earnshaw whom the Rev. Mr Isitt gave such a tongue-thrashing to in Dunedin not long ago. Mr Isi t’s bad judgment is proved by the fact that Mr Earnshaw is one of the foremost champions of temperance in Parliament now. It is time that Mr Isitt was able to distinguish friends from foes.

The Hon. W. Rolleston has had a narrow escape of being a philosopher. He says the worst enemies of working men are those who mixed up politics with social questions, and that the Conciliation Bill strikes at the industries of the country. Most people believe that politics are made up of social que .:tions, but Mr Kolleston is a philosopher, and he knows. The Conciliation Bill is to settle trade disputes by arbitration instead of strikes, and iiow that could destroy the industries.of the colonies is another philosophic question which no one but Mr Rolleston can understand.

The Distress for Rent Bill is a measure affecting landlord and tenant. At present the landlord must get his rent before any other creditor gets a penny, and, besides, he need not summon to the court, or get judgment, he can simply putin a distress warrant and distrain on the tenant’s effects. The object of the Distress for Rent Bill is to put the landlord on an equal footing with other creditors, and it appears to us that this is fair, more especially as the landlords frequently abuse their privileges. It has frequently happened that tenants have become bankrupt without in any way being disturbed in their holdings. The landlord’s rent is paid, he is satisfied, but the other creditors have been robbed to pay him. The Bill has, we believe, no chance of passing this session.

Sir John Hall has pulled our surplus to pieces. He says that instead of a surplus of £512,000, we have only a surplus of £38,000, but there are a few weak points in his arguments. He says that a part of the surplus of this year is made up of the surplus brought forward from last year, and that is true, but the weakness of Sir John Hall’s argument is that last year he argued there was no surplus at all, in fact, he said there was a deficit. Then it comes to this: Sir John Hall was wrong last year when he said there was mo surplus, otherwise he could not be right in saying that it was brought forward to this year. Then there must have been a surplus, for £200,000 of it was paid over to the public works and £250,000 is promised for next year. The surplus must be there or the Government could not do this ; they could not make bricks without straw. When Sir John Hall can blunder like this no reliance can be put on his statements.

It would appear from a question on the order paper that the Hon. G. F. Richardson, late Minister of Lands, was, in som e measure, responsible for the land scrip trouble. The question is whether the receiver ef land revenue was misled by instructions given him by Mr G. F. Richardson, late Minister of Lands. The inference from this is that Mr Richardson, instructed the receiver of land revenue to honor the orders, and it is rather hard on that officer to have to bear the blame if that is so. From a private source we learn that there is some written evidence of this but, doubtless, if so that will come out yet. At any rate, Mr Smith wants to make Mr Richardson pay to the colony the loss sustained.

Mr Sbera’s Restraint of Monopolies Bill declares all combinations in the nature of monopolies illegal, and punishable by a fine of £SOO and 12 months’ imprisonment. We do not know whether this will embrace large companies, but if so jf will go hard with Nelson Bros. They are rapidly obtaining a monopoly of the New Zealand frozen meat; they will soon have the whole colony within their grasp, and the result will not be good for the colony in the end.

fjie Premier is being blamed for puttingdosya his foot, and insisting on nothing except the dis,cession on the financial statement being taken in hand that is finished, but what else could he do yffien a part of one evening was spent in discussing il|§ relative merits of two reaping machines, and when onp Auckland memW threatened another ' “ Flatten him out,' 5 The member to ~ ■ +r» waste time, tactics of the Opposition are and let nothing be done, and hence the trouble.

A Wellington telegram says that efforts are being made to keep the constituencies as at present in the South Island. This would simply meau an addition of one member to the House.

In “ The Memoirs of the late Lord Sherbrook,” better known as Robert Low, the following verse appears ; “ Twelve millions of taxes I took off, And I left six millions of gains; I took foity millions of debt off, And got well abused for my pains.”

This was Lord Sherbrook’s experience, and the present Government might very well say the same thing now. The present Government have taken £57,000 off improvements, and increased the gi’aduated property tax by £19,000 ; but what is the result ? Simply that they are told that they have done this at the dictation of the Trades and Labor Council ! Now the effect of the change is that £38,000 have been taken ob the wealthy jaea pf

the colony, and yet there are members capable of such brazen-faced impudence as to say this has been done at the instigation of the Trades and Labor Council! Serve the Government right We have no sympathy with them. They have been working heaven and earth to placate the wealthy classes, and this will show them they can’t do it. Serve them right! They ought to look after the people who are easy to please and grateful for anything done for them, instead of bowing down to the golden calf.