THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1893. THE FUTURE PREMIER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2590, 5 December 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1893. THE FUTURE PREMIER.

When the late John Ballance died the whole of the Conservative press of New Zealand proclaimed the Honorable R, J. Seddon as his legitimate successor. They seemed to take a sudden liking to him ; they said he was the strongest man in the Ministry; that he possessed wonderful capacities for adapting himself to any circumstances in which he might be placed ; and in fine they discovered, as it were in the twinkling of an eye, that he was a heaven-born statesman, and the only one in New Zealand fit to replace the lamented dead. It was easy to see what they meant. Sir Robert Stout was then a candidate for Inangahua, and some people, of course, had looked upon him as the coming Premier. This did not suit the Conservatives. Their idea was to create a feud between Sir Robert Stout and Mr Seddon, and with that object in view they commenced to abuse the former and praise the latter. Sir Robert was, according to them, a faddist who had Utopian ideas, without possessing one iota of practical capacity for statesman ship. He was everything that was bad, and in no way to be compared with their darling pro tem —Mr Seddon. Time went, Parliament met, and the Liberal party selected Mr Seddon as their leader. No sooner was the selection made, and Sir Robert Stout .left out in the cold, than the Conservative press discovered that a great blunder had been committed. Mr Seddon was iu no way fitted for the position, and Sir Robert Stout’s star was once more in the ascendant. Through the late election they pitted both gentlemen against each other, but they declined the encounter. Only on two occasions have they come in conflict: that was as regards taxation, and again on the liquor bill. Until last session all improvements over £3OOO were taxed, but the Government, finding themselves having an enormous surplus, decided on relieving all improvements of taxation altogether, in fulfilment of a promise made by the late Mr Ballance. To make up a part of the loss to the revenue thus sustained they increased the graduated tax on large estates. To those proposals Sir Robert Stout objected on the ground that he did not believe iu parting with any of the revenue, and that the graduated tax would be too high. Sir Robert was defeated on the first point, and on the second point he voted with the Government. On the Liquor Bill, of comse, he offered strenuous opposition, but Sir Robert is well known as a temperance advocate, and it was only natural that he should do all he could to advance a cause which he so heartily espoused. On all other points Sir Robert was practically in accord with the Government, and he voted with them and supported them on most occasions. The Liquor Bill was never a party question, and in his speech in Timaru Mr Seddon said that he gave his followers full leave to vote as they liked, so after all there was nothing extraordinary in Sir Robert taking tho course he took. And now what is the hope—the loadstar of the Conservatives ? Simply Sir Robert Stout. In him they see now their only hope. The man they have abused more than any in New Zealand ; the man whose influence they have tried to break down is the man to whom they look now to lead them. They will find themselves very much mistaken. Sir Robert Stout will never do that. If Sir Robert ever, leads, it will be the Liberal party, butat present there appears very little prospects of his attaining to that position. He can get a seat in the Liberal cabinet any moment; it has been offered to him already and he has refused it, but at present Mr Seddon is leader, and we see no disposition on the part of Liberals to dispossess him Most of the old members are personal followers of Mr Seddon, and most of the new members have got in on his recommendation. Is it likely these will turn round on him at once and eject him from office I Certainly not. There is, it is true, a large number of them in favor of temperance, but that does not mean that they are opposed to Mr Seddon. Sir Robert Stout will undoubtedly bring in a Bill to amend the present liquor law, and it may possibly pa2s the Lower House, but that will not involve liu Seddou’s premiership. In Lyttelton Mr bC.ddon said he would never make a Liquor Bill a question on which he would stand or fan, w oUld be monstrous to do so ; it is a mete side issue, and even its passing would make very little difference. The direct veto merely gives the people the right to say whether they shall grant licenses or not. r,,K >e great majority of the people are undoubted'” 1^“ whether wo get a vhree-fiiths or a o<*re majority will not make much difference. One thing is certain. Mr Seddon is the present Premier; the elections have been carried out under his leadership, and an immense majority of Government supporters have been returned, Bad generalship only can remove the present leader ; he has no rival for the position, and there is not the slightest prospect of a change for the next three years. There are rumours afloat that Sir Robert Stout may be appointed Chief Justice, This i s more likely. Sir James Prendergast is getting very old now and may at any moment retire. If Sir Robert Stout would Sn&ept the position he would undoubtedly get ft, it is 7 er y P r ° bable he would not bartev hi? liberty for it However, we see no prospect qf a change in the leadership of the Liberal and the opinions to the contrary are purely speculation. The Conservatives are merely trying to create a split in the Liberal ranks, but m venture to think they will not succeed.

BOYCOTTING,

We regret very much to learn that the bitter feeling engendered by the elections is still strong, and that it is carried to the extent of the boycott. Workmen have been dismissed, pjilkmen have been changed, and ao on, Uojp this is very deplorable, and wo appeal to £ood sense of the people to bury the past, jaefctle down in peace and harmony as neighbors ought to do. All of us are interested in tbs wellbeing of the colony; all of us desire to inake it rich and prosperous, and in ordm' th?>t be able to do so it is extremely that a difference of opinion should eyist in our midst. All authorities agree that difference of opinion is nece wy to goo 4

government, and, that being so, why should we quarrel with each other over the existence of the most desirable element in our political life ? It is madness to do so, and to institute the boycott is worse than madness. We have a beautiful country j we want to push it ahead and make it prosperous, but we cannot do it by boycotting each other. We can only make our lives miserable, and cause illfeeling, discontent, and mischief, by instituting the boycott. One party has won this time, but public opinion changes. It swings like the pendulum of a clock, and it may possibly be in the other direction this time three years. Are we to have the boycott renewed then 1 This sort of feeling is unworthy of men ; it is brutal. It is a relic of barbarism, and ought never to be heard of amongst civilised human-beings.