الة
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :---
mimimmiw
C.O. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
240
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT: Then for whose benefit is it, if it is not for the sake of the sugar colonies?
Mr. LECLEZIO: The argument is far fetched.
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT: I say it is for the benefit of the sugar colonies; it was put forward on behalf of the colonies; it was urged solely on the ground of the interests of the sugar colonies.
Mr. DUCLOS: What about the imperial ground set forth by Mr. Chamberlain?
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT: I say that the interest of the sugar colonies is an imperial ground, and I say also that in the interest of the sugar colonies the English people have made, and are making, sacrifices.
The other point is with regard to the hon. member's criticism of the estimates; there were some remarks which he made about the military contribution. I quite admit that the military contribution is a serious charge on this colony. But it must not be forgotten that there is something to be said on the other side.
Mr. LECLEZIO: Allow me, I made no complaint as to that, I said that it was a dead-weight.
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT: It is not a dead-weight. The military paymaster in the colony paid during the last year, in wages, over two millions of rupees. That is money which is put in circulation in this Colony. So that it is not entirely dead-weight, as the hon. member wishes to make out. It is certainly a dead-weight in one sense, but it is not a dead-weight in the true sense because a large amount of money is put in circulation, in return for the military contribu- tion, an amount equal to four times that of the military contribution.
But in all that the hon. member has said in regard to the financial difficulties of the Colony I entirely agree. We are in a serious financial position, and the time has arrived to take stock of our position. The hon. member does not stop at pointing out the difficulties of our financial position to-day, but he points out that next year we will probably be in equal or greater difficulties. I agree with him. Next year we shall probably be in the same position as this year.
Now, the hon. member proposes to meet those difficulties by a loan, that is to say, to balance our deficit on the present year's estimates by a loan. Let us look at this proposal. If we are going to square our difficulties on the present year's estimates by a loan what are we going to do next year? As I say, the point which the hon. member has brought home with so much clearness-a point in which he has my entire and full concurrence—is that the time has come for us to take stock of our expenditure and of our revenue. Our revenue, as the hon. member has rightly said, amounts to one-third of the whole income of the Colony, and we know that in our estimates practically one-half that third is in what may call fixed and unproductive expenditure.
When I prepared my speech at the opening of the Council I told hon. members that I was grieved at the necessity for extra taxation. Let me at once say that I did not propose it with a light heart. There is no more invidious task, and there is no more unpleasant duty than to impose extra taxation on an impoverished com- munity. I am fully aware of the position of the community-I am fully aware of the position of the sugar industry in this Colony, and say that it was certainly
with no light heart, but with a very heavy heart indeed, that I felt myself compelled to propose the remedy of extra taxation to meet the deficit. The first thought that occurred to me when I found myself in presence of a deficit was a remedy that has often been suggested, and which has sometimes been adopted: I refer to the personal emoluments. If hon. members will look at the beginning of the estimates, on page 9, they will find that personal emoluments exceed three millions. Now, there was a proposal made which at all events had the merit of simplicity-it was very simple, it was to tax the whole of the personal emoluments. They amount, as I say, to over three millions. Ten per cent. would produce three hundred thousand rupees. That seemed a very simple solution. Well, I thought it over, and I came to the conclusion that it was impossible. There are in this Colony over 6.000 persons in the employment of the Government, one way or another. About 4,888 of those persons are, you may sav, in continuous employment. The bulk of those people is represented by persons drawing very small salaries, very small salaries indeed. I will
take the case of a second class station master, drawing Rs. 1,500, or a fifth class station master with Rs. 600 per annum. That man may have a wite and family.
I know of one who has fourteen persons to keep on that salary. Now, we have from time to time, and unfortunately it has been my unpleasant duty, to take notice of various defalcations in the Railway Department and in other Departments of the service. Of course, these things cannot be excused, the very extremity of the temptation makes it necessary to take an example, but I have always felt, and I still think that these people are put into a most painful position when they have to face the difficulties of a wife and family on such small salaries as those that they receive. Therefore, I put aside altogether as impossible what I may, I hope, without offence, call the lower classes-we cannot tax them. Now we come to what I may call the better classes of employés, I will take those at Rs. 6,000 and downwards. I will take, for example, my friend the Acting Collector of Customs whose substantive post is Assistant Collector of Customs, and I will take also the Colonial Postmaster. They represent a salary of Rs. 6,000, and that is after a service of forty years. The Colonial Postmaster entered the service in 1860, and my friend, the Collector of Customs, in 1859, so that that salary, and what is it, Rs. 6,000, has been attained after a service of 44 years. Then we come to another class of salaries, that is, the salaries drawn by what I may call the higher classes of officials, such as the Medical Director, the Judges, the Procureur-General and myself. These officials mostly possess professional qualifications, and I have recently had occasion to communicate with two gentlemen at the bar in regard to a post on the bench of the Supreme Court, I got the same answer from both of them, that they could not afford to take it. Now, if there is one thing that is more certain than another, it is that if the Government employ professional men it ought to employ the very best, especially in those higher branches, such as the Procureur-General and the Judges of the Supreme Court. So it comes to this, that these men are not, certainly, too well paid, when we find that the leading men of their profession absolutely refuse to accept the appoint- ments because the salary is insufficient. Therefore question of taxing the salaries of public officers.
was obliged to put aside all
Then we come to the question of whether it is wise to balance the budget by loans or by extra taxation. Now, the first point that meets one is, as the hon. member for Moka has correctly explained, that the difficulty does not arise only in this year--it is going to arise again next year, and the difficulty is caused by excess of expenditure. But the hon. member will say: this is not current expenditure, this is expenditure incurred for public works which are over and done with-they will not occur next year. That argument, of course, is perfectly valid as far as it goes. and it becomes a question how far we are justified in putting the burden of these works on posterity. Well, that is a question that has been debated, as the hon. member says, in the House of Commons, it has been debated in various books of political economy---I will not trouble hon. members with reading them--and it has been debated in almost every Colony where this question of public works has come up, as it does come up almost every year, because the question really comes to this: are we justified in putting the burden on posterity? very much depends on the nature of the burden. I do not think that any reason- The reply to that is that it able man would say that a reproductive work, a work which not only provides the interest of the debt incurred in creating itself, but also the sinking fund, should not be placed on posterity, that is to say, the expenditure should be covered by means of a loan. With that we all agree. Any reproductive work which provides its own interest and sinking fund may reasonably without injustice be placed upon the shoulders of our descendants. Now, the question I put to myself is, are these works of such a character? But as regards that question I ought to say that there is one exception, it does not apply to this Colony, but still I ought to mention it. When I speak of putting burdens on posterity I do not mean war expenditure. That does not apply to this Colony, and I put in this saving clause in order that my remarks in regard to reproductive expenditure might not carry a meaning which they are not intended to convey.
Now I have got to examine the question; is it or is it not an expenditure of such a nature that it might reasonably be placed on posterity? We first of all come to the case of the Bois Chéri railway. Some very hard things have been said about the Bois Chéri railway. They are not all deserved. very exceptional difficulties; it was built to meet an exceptional want, and it was That railway was built under built in a hurry, and, moreover, it was a cheap railway; I mean cheap on account
19234
2 H