THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1894. INSURANCE DEPOSITS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2692, 31 July 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1894. INSURANCE DEPOSITS.

Of all the crazy objections which men have ever made, the craziest is that raised to the proposal to compel foreign insurance companies to lodge with the Public Trustee of New Zealand £50,000, or securities to that amount. Our country is bleeding at every pore, owing to the fact that we have borrowed largo sums in foreign countries, and that the interest payable on it is draining the life blood of the colony year after year. Our policy should, therefore, be to keep the money in the colony as much as possible. The proposal to insist on foreign insurance companies doing business in this colony depositing £50,000, or securities to that amount, with the Public Trustee is a step in that direction. It does not matter whether they deposit the money or the mortgage deeds : the effect is the same. If the mortgage deeds are deposited that will show that the money has already been invested in the colony, and that is all that is wanted ; if the money is deposited the Public Trustee can invest it satisfactorily on freehold security. In either case the money will be kept in the colony. The cry is that it means another loan to the Government, Nothing more impudent than this can be imagined. Cannot Parliament put it beyond the reach of the Government by providing that trust money thus obtained must be invested in freehold security ? Then, supposing the Government did utilise it as a loan, what is wrong about it ? Is it not better than raising a loan on the Loudon market ? But the ©hie! point in connection with this matter Is that it improves the security of those interested in these institution a. For instance, the people of this colony are interested in these companies as follows: — A.M.P. Society £5,169,945 Colonial Mutual ... ... 950,358 Equitable Life of America... 456,014 Mutual of Victoria... ... 231,556 Mutual of Australia ... 792,809 National Mutual ... 668,149 New York Life Company ... 85,105 £8,328,947 From these figures it will be seeu that the people of this colony are interested iu these societies to the extent of £8,328,947, and we ask is it anything extraordinary to compel these societies to lodge with the Public Trustee securities to the value of £350,000 I It is Bwnatrons to object—it is monstrous to permit especial Americau concerns to take the money of the people in this way without giving good and sufficient security that they will be able to pay their liabilities when required. In our opinion iJ? e Y ought to be compelled to invest within the cMony *he money they receive in it, and the amount now asked of them is altogether too sind. 1 ’- R is inconceivable how men on whom the responsibility of looking after the interests of w-f* people has been placed can object to this vel'7 reasonable proposal. In the last Parliament there were men who, just like the present representatives, aimed at destroying the Government by trying to gull the people with fempty cries like this. Where are they now ? In the quietude of private life, and that is exactly whore some of those who are trying to destroy the present Government will find themselves after next election. THE SCENE IN PARLIAMENT. It appears that there was a vofy excited scene iu Parliament last Friday night, rather Saturday morning. The aubj et for discussion was the Laud for Settlement Bill, The Minister of Lauds desired to carry the second reading of the measure, but several of his followers wished to speak op the subject, and for that reason wanted to adjourn the debate. This the Minister of Lands would not permit, and the result was moel ion amongst his own followers. Seeing '.is obedience in the ranks, Mr McKenzie became angry, and threatened to resign if not loyally supported, and in this he was backed up by the Pi-emiur. In our opinion both Ministers took a veiy injudicious course. There are many members iu Parliament who do not understand other subjects so well as they do land; and when those had prepared to speak and place on record their views, no one can blame them if they felt displeased at being deprived of an opportunity of proving to their constituencies their fitness for the responsibilities they had undertaken. Everyone, understands land, and the evils attendin'; largo estates ; everyone cun speak on the subject, and i

as the constituents of each member understands the subject as well as himself, such speeches would be valuable to members in future elections. We do not blame the members who rebelled, but we do blame the Government for not showing more consideration to their own followers. So far they have been most loyally supported, and they ought to give as well as take, and not try to drive too hard men who had shown every disposition to go straight with them. Ministers must learn to lead, not to drive. There are times when Mi jisters must call on their supporters to give up any ideas of their own for the sake of the party, but this was not one of them, and no such demand ought to have been made. The Minister of Lands is said to be irritated, too, because fault is found with the details of the Bill. Some don’t like a lease in perpetuity; some object to the constitution of the board, and so on. These are details which in all conscience the Minister ought to be prepared to amend, if his supporters desire it. No Bill of this kind has ever been introduced into Parliament which has not been amended, and the Minister ought to be prepared to receive suggestions, in the same way as all other Ministers have done. There is a principle in this Bill—that is the power, to take land under compulsion—and if that is agreed to the Minister ought ’hot to cavil at small details. However, it would be very serious if the unpleasantness of Friday night would lead to a disruption of the party; Ministers as well as members have responsibilities in this respect. The country has supported the Government by giving them an immense majority, but if the Government drive that majority into rebellion then the country will resent it.

CHEAP MONEY. One of the proposals which is meeting with a most determined opposition is the cheap money to farmers scheme, and what astonishes us most is some of the objections which have been raised against it. Mr Earnshaw, who has been returned by the poor to represent the poor, is reported to have said that it would not be safe to lend to farmers to the extent of twothirds of the value of their lauds, because the other one-third would not be a sufficient margin. He is a nice specimen of a poor man’s (representative—democrat, socialist, etc. Now if the money is not to be advanced to t-hel extent of two-thirds the value of the land it is no use to borrow it at all. The farmers who own half their own lauds are very well off, they are rich because they have sufficient security, and they will have no difficulty in getting good terms from private money-lenders. The man whose property is mortgaged to the extent of two-thirds, is the man who requires assistance, and the member of Parliament who professes democratic and socialistic sympathies, and would deny the farmer this much needed help, is either a fool or a fraud. We could understand Captain Bussell raising this objection, but for Mr Earnshaw to raise it is the quintessence of folly. The man whose mortgage debt is only 50 per cent, of the value of his land can get money at 6 per cent, but the man who requires a sum equal to two-thirds the value of his land could not get it at less than 7| per cent. Now say there are two farmers, each having £SOOO worth of land, and are circumstanced as we have stated : the man whose mortgage is only 50 per cent, of the value of his land would only save £26 a year by the Government proposal, while the man whoso mortgage is two-thirds would save £B3 a year. Mr Earnshaw would save the £25 to the wealthy man, and deny any assistance to the struggling poor man to better his position by £B3 a year. As for the margin of one-third of the value of the land it is absolutely safe, but if it were not, is it a land nationalise! and socialist who ought to complain? Certainly not. The worst that could happen is that the laud would fall into the hands of the Government, and that, of course, is in the eyes of sensible men, professing socialistic sympathies, a consummation devoutly to be wished.