NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 574, 31 July 1909, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

There is a point in Mr. Millar's speech to the Liberal and Labour Federation on Wednesday night that must bo noticed before the gentle; dust of Time buries his words. lie appealed to his hearers "not to forgot' the Liberal party in the papt," and ho went on to say that the Government .was "going on -exactly the same lines as were laid down by; JOHN Ballance, and followed by Mr. Seddon and Sir Joseph Waiid." As it is possible that the members of the Federation may have-a-little, trouble in looking up "tho linos that were laid down by John Ballance," may we assist by quoting them from Balance's first Budget! They arc as follow: ' '

"Wo must bo certain, while tho great object is being readied, that wo shall have sufficient revenue to. moot tho growing' demands on the Consolidated Fund, arising through the cessation of borrowing large amounts of money in. tho English'market. For, if wo are to maintain our credit and financial independence, borrowing in that market must oeaso. ~ . . On tho other hand, if. tho machinery ' of government could bo simplified, and judicious retrenchment carried to its proper limit, the; expenditure side of the account might still bo considerably reduced. But wo are strongly of opinion ■ that' any material reduction must come from a more direct and simple form of administration, directed to tho attainment of practical ends; and it will be. necessary to see that our measures of legislation do hot includc liabilities which will render this form of economy an impossibility."; •

And the Government has been going on "exactly, the same lines" bo faithfully that the Seddon and Ward Governments 'have added, thirty millions to the Public 'Debt, and increased the cost of the 1 Departments by £3,560,533 a year, or 176 per cent.! ' ' ,

On Thursday last we took a little space to ejtposc the fallacy in the evening jour' nal's assertion that "to.attempt'toapply to private lands' the principle which the Farmers' Union proposes to apply to the lands of the Crown is the best way of demonstrating its. monstrous absurdity." We were'not 'at all surprised when we saw on Thursday evening.that our contemporary ■ had been unable to devise somo sort of. rcjofnder. After .sleeping on the matter,.however, it came out-yes-terday with' an" engagingly ! irrelevant explanation:-' It agrees with us—at any rate :it does not disagree, with us—as to there being no identity atf all, between ■ ."the landlord . Slate dealing .with ita ; own lands and the: State dealing'.with the lan'cls of' tlie private landlord.' But it quite fails to see that once this alleged, identity is shown not to exist, our case is ; fully, established;'' We $ro how hsked< td" believe', that it had only befiii suggesting an "analogy," and not an "identity/' between the two eases, ■ How evert'.;that can .better its argument,we cannot for the lifq of 'us' sec.. Ifc'rter'ely makes'itt'trgiimCnt run this way: "Ofcoui'se there is no identity between the caso. of A giving! privileges, to his own .tenant, ; and the caso .of A forcing B to„gi\'e privileges, to, B's tenant. Indeed, there-is not only no identity between the cases :' thfcy are .exactly opposite to each' other as regards the point in issue.' But we assert that these diametrically opposed, cases ■ are analogous, any.way;''" So there!" Of course, if our contemporary. wants to proceed on the'lines of. the King of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland"—. '. ,

A good deal of curiosity has been manifested locally as' to who sent, who. received, and who paid'for,'the long_ report of Sir Joseph Ward's speech which was published yesterday'. It" could ! barmy have been dispatched and paid for by the New; < Zealand.. Press : ; Association; •; bdeause that would have been'a. serious ,breach of its agreement-with the United Press Association (the Australian syndicate which controls the press cable Bon'ico' to New Zealand). Nothing remains,' therefore, but to conclude that the message will have to be paid for by the people of this country.,, Whether the message was'worth as .ibu'ch' to this country as it must have cost—as. a. "private", message, wMch is. what .some of our. contemporaries declare it to have been, : it would have cost at least £75—is a; question upon which opinions will necessarily 'diffcr.i Shakespeare, or even Bacon, at three shillings a word ; is certainly an extravagance, but ; of course the oloquence, of Sir Joseph must be rated at; a rather higher value. The whole thing is wrapped' in mystery, but' we. have not the least doubt that the report was';a.faithful account of what Sin Joseph actually said; Some of the phrases employed place that'beyond all doubt.! Some of them ' could not have been thought of by anybody but the Prime Minister. Perhaps, the public will be asked to believe that the message, .was paid for, out of the private purse of the. sender or the recipient. . Enthusiasm, of course, bloweth where it Hsteth, and'.the' public may believe the private enthusiast theory if it cares to. ,

A printer's erroiS occurred in a table published in the leading article on the public accounts which appeared in.yesterday's issue. The table as printed road as follows 1 June, 1908. Juno, 1909. ' ■ £ ,fi Balance at beginning of '.': qbarter ': ' ... ■ .... 767,849 • ' 184,320 Ordinary rnvo.miA ... 1,747,803 .1,802,854 Territorial revenuo ... 987,756 23,741 Permanent appropriations (exponaituro) ... .967,756 955,809 Annual 1 appropriations (expenditure) ... 969,109 1,007,273 Revenue transferred to • Publio Works ... - 200,000 • , nfl. Balanco at end quarter.,. ■ 422,901 48,835 It will bo seen that the amount set down as territorial revenue for the June quarter, 1908, is exactly tho same as the permanent appropriations for the quarter. It should have been £48,283. The increase of £38,000 in the expenditure referred to in the same article related to the increase in the cost of the various Departments of tho State. There was a rcducfckm in the, permanent appropriations of £12,000, which made the net increase in tho expenditure for the quarter £26,000, as against a net increase in revenue of nearly £35,000. ' . J