THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1894. MR SAUNDERS’ SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2737, 13 November 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1894. MR SAUNDERS’ SPEECH.

Nothing has astonished us for a long time so much as the speech delivered by Mr Alfred Saunders last week to his constituents, Mr Saunders has not been recognised as a staunch follower of the present Government. When elected in 1890 he was regarded as an opponent of the Liberal party, but he proved himself a nowerful supporter of the late Mr r> i] "ce. When elected again last year rsaua*' , f -»d upon as a thorough Liberal, he was look. V could hayo ma(Je & but no Conservac *Ke present Gomore violent attack on * r - , vernment. Mr Saunders has aiwaj. looked upon as rather erratic, if not eccentric, but his sincerity, honesty, and ability, have seldom been doubted. Wo regret, however, to say that he has completely blasted his reputation for honesty and ability by his speech of last week. No honest man possessing the experience and ability Mr Saunders has displayed in the past could put down as borrowing the £2,000,000 million guaranteed for the Bank of New Zealand. It may be worse than borrowing. We may some day have to pay it without getting a single penny direct benefit from it, but at present only a man mentally incapable or designedly dishonest could put it down as money borrowed to enable the Government to indulge in exlravagent expenditure. Even he himself said he did not vote against the £2,000,000 guarantee. Then is it not the height of nonsense to put down as borrowing £1,500,000 intended as cheap money for fanners I That money is borrowed already and is included in the private debt of the colony. It is borrowed on debentures by the money-lending Companies of New Zealand, who are dr'crging and 8 per cent out of the noonle o.* ♦■his colony. Surely to transfer this P from our ""Tate our public burden, and gain there,;” from 2 * o3 .P er cent, cannot be regarded as ° Mr Saunders bemoaned the fact .. owing to the appreciation of gold our debt has doubled. If Mr Saunders knew what he was talking about he would put this down to depreciation of commodities instead of appreciation of gold. Gold has not appreciated or depreciated in value, it is just what it has been for a long time, but wheat and wool and frozen mutton have depreciate h and hence the reason that we require almost double the quantity of them that sufficed formerly to meet onr foreign liabilities. Rut Mr Saunders’s misapplication of terms would have been of very little consequence only for the fact that he shows that he understands the cause of the depression whilst condemning the best remedy that could possibly bo invented. The position is this; The interest ou our foreign

public and private debt comes to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year and owing to the fall in prices we must produce nearly twice as much as we required formerly to pay this. Now the cheap money for farmers will work in two ways to help us : first, as we have said the money has already been borrowed by mortgage companies, who wrench from the people from 6£ to 8 per cent, on it, and if the Government borrow at 3$ per cant, will not the sum total of our annual charge for interest be decreased ? For instance, say the £1,500,000 will be borrowed at 3$ per cent., it means that we shall have about £30,000 less to pay in interest to our foreign creditors. Accordiug to Mr Saunders’s own showing, that £30,000 saved is equal to £60,000 a few years ago. It means that the saving is equal to an increase of about a quarter of a million bushels of wheat. Then, in the second place, will not the cheap money enable farmers to go to work more energetically, and produce more commodities for export 1 The scheme will therefore work beneficially in two directions, viz., decrease our annual charge for interest, and increase our means of paying it. Again, IMr Saunders condemns as borrowing £250,000 for settling people on the land. Does iv r Saunders believe in settling people on the laud? If so, how can it be done without money ? and where is the money to be got otherwise than by borrowing ? Be it also remembered that this borrowing does not increase taxation, because the rents from the land will pay the interest. That is not borrowing, and neither is £250,000 for buying native lauds, for the land will pay for itself. The £250,000 for making roads is real honest borrowing, because the taxpayers must pay the interest, and that is all the borrowing with which the Government can be charged. The Bank of New Zealand will pay interest on the £2,000,000 guarantee, the settlers will pay interest on the £250.000 under land for settlement and £250,000 native laud, but the public as a whole must pay interest on the £250,000 for making roads. There is another item of borrowing mentioned by Mr Saunders, and that is the £1,000,000 consols, but in the opinion of those who understand anything about finance this is the best measure of the whole session. The position is this : There are millions at present deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, and on this the Government is paying 4 per cent. In order to pay the interest the Government must make some use of it, but as it is deposited at call it cannot be invested in permanent works, because the depositors may ac any moment demand it. The position of the Government as regards this money is therefore very risky; the people could at any time demand this money, and the Government would find it difficult to pay this enormous sum at a moment’s notice. In addition to this the system of depositing money in the Post Office Savings Bank is cumbersome. The depositor must carry his book with him and go through some red-taperism to get his money back. These two drawbacks will be remedied by the Consols Act. In the first place the money will be lent to the Government, not at call, as at present, but for 30 years, and the Government can therefore do something with it; and in the second place the depositors will get consols, which will pass from hand to hand like pound notes, and all red-tapeism will be at an end. But supposing these consols were taken up by persons who have no deposits in the savings banks, what will the Government do with the money ? Mr Ward has told us he will lend £250,060 of it to local bodies, and no doubt he will invest £500,000 in buying private and native laud. In that case he need not go to London for money to buy the land or make roads. The money borrowed under the Consols Bill will suffice. But Mr Saundrs and other critics of the Government policy refuse to see it in this light. They insist on making it appear that all this is fresh borrowing, but if it were it would have been appropriated. The amount proposed to be raised under the Consols Act has not been appropriated, and consequently it is quite plain the Government will employ it as indicated. That being so, is it not scandalous to put down the consols as borrowing in the colony, and put down money for purchasing land as borrowing abroad ? If the consols money is employed in buying land it is only one borrowing, but Mr Saunders doubles everything, and thus makes up a stupendous grand total. In all our experience of politics we have seen nothing more dishonest than the criticism to which the financial policy of the present Government is being subjected just now. At first glance we came to the conclusion that Mr Saunders,) as a temperance man, had decided to throw in his lot with Sir Robert Stout, but he condemned that gentleman as vehemently as he did Mr Seddon. He said he was so inconsistent that no one who had any regard for himself could follow him. That being so, Mr Saunders’s conduct remains an enigma which no one can understand, but certain it is that the speech he delivered last week has greatly disappointed his friends.

WHO SHOULD PROPOSE ? W, nnhlish in another column the first ofseveral articles supped to us by Lady Cook. The others we have rej?°ted as not fit for publication, owing to their suggestivoness. Lady Cook is, we believe, the wife of Sir Francis Cook, concerning whom news came by cable recently to the effect that he was involved in a breach of promise case. Sir Francis is over 70 years of age, and the lady who brought the breach of promise case against him was one with whom he was acquainted previous to his marriage. Lady Cook is, we believe, much younger than Sir Francis. Lady Cook is also a sister of Mrs Woodhull Martin, who, it will be remembered, brought an action against the directors of some public library in England recently. Sir George Grey was recently the guest of Mr and Mrs Martin. Both ladies are, we believe, American, and have distinguished themselves in writing on the subject of Marriage. Both are certainly very able writers, and there is much truth iu what they say, but we belong to those who believe there are many things which should not be proclaimed from the housetops, and consequently we rejected Lady Cook’s articles. The one we now publish, however, cannot harm anyone. There is -eason whv woman should not propose no '—ires to do so, and we believe if she n»- we H too. UnleFs we man would like . -women nowadays are greatly mistaken. . : **or—if not do a good deal of the propos.. -o directly, indirectly, and if she were to u the whole hog wo cannot see how she would bo much the better for it. No doubt manv women sea man they would like to marry if good fortune threw them in their way ; but supposing the men did not want to marry them, what then ! Men also see wmon they would bka to m rry, hot th nigh thov are privileged to prnnosa they do not always succeed. It. would ho so with women. They would have to submit to the humiliation of being ’•ejected just exactly liko men. Probably we have old fashioned ideas on

these subjects, and consequently cannot bring our sympathies quite in a line with the modern woman’s aspirations, but this we may say, that under our present social system it is impossible to realise the ideas which are being promulgated by such women as Lady Cook just now. It is all very well to dilate on love and so forth, but the pounds, shillings and pence aspect of the question must be studied as well as anything else, and herein lies the whole difficulty. Men and women cannot marry when and whom they like, because there is an after-part to be considered. They must not forget that “ love flies out at the casement when poverty comes in the door,” and this constitutes the great barrier. Our opinion is that Lady Cook and other modern women are women’s enemies at the present time by filling their heads with unrealisable ideas, if not worse. The whole thing hangs on this : The aristocracy are leading a life of luxury, idleness, and vice, and these modern women writers take their cue from the social condition of that class. This isa mistaken view of life. In all countries, and at all times, men and women living in luxury and idleness never distinguished themselves for their virtues, and never will, and it is a mistake to condemn the whole human race, because one class is not what it ought to be. There is a great deal of good in human nature yet, and we believe it is getting better every year, but such writings as Lady Cook’s can only have the effect of making women discontented and men suspicious. This must lead to mutual distrust and infelicity, and do harm to both. For this reason we think the modern woman is the greatest enemy of her sex and ought; to be discouraged.