SIR JOSEPH WARD AND FINANCE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 71, 17 December 1928, Page 12

SIR JOSEPH WARD AND FINANCE

Sir, —Regarding your' extract from the “Exporter” in Saturday’s issue, which you say cames from an authoritative and non-partisan source, it is unusual for one used to the gentle art of balances to give such a one-sided statement, and to base nearly the whole on opinion and fancy, and very little on fact and history. “Economist” asserts that ’’Sir Joseph Ward made what financial reputation he possesses under the guidance and control of the late Mr. Seddon, in the palmy days when everything was going up.” What utter nonsense. I think “Economist” ought to read the Press opinions of Mr. Seddon when he formed his Cabinet, and anyone knows it was the splendid brains behind a fighting and determined man who knew enough to use the brains around him and be guided by them, and not that Mr. Seddon had a monopoly of brains, guiding and controlling, Sir Joseph Ward, Sir John McKenzie, and others. And as to the “palmy days,” if “Economist” was more conversant with political history he would be better at political economy. The fact is, the Atkinson Conservative Government ended iii disaster in IS9O, aud the country was in an appalling state, culminating in the bank crisis in 1894. Who saved the situation then? None other than Sir Joseph Ward —“palmy days,” forsooth. Again, when it comes to “memories of the past policies aud achievements,” Sir Joseph Ward has both, and they are world famed, and will never die. There are his Post and Telegraph, banking, public debt, extinction fund, and State Advance legislation, and not the least amongst them is the policy framed while he was Minister of Finance in the National Cabinet.

When “Economist” says Sir' Joseph Ward did nothing to steady the boom, he again is very much wrong, for Sir Joseph Ward warned the Government that they were creating a boom by buying land extensively for cash, and lie formulated a safeguading policy, and refused to sanction cash payment, and resigned rather than sanction it. The Conservatives’ weak attitude in claiming that vendors would not sell other than for cash was ridiculous, mid in any case it would have been better if practically all those Reform supporters who were unloading on to the soldiers, had been told to go somewhere. The land purchases and land administration under Reform will probably be investigijred now, and disclosures made.

“Economist” says: “The trouble in New Zealand is not the lack of investable funds . . . there is money available in plenty,” and “London is averse to making loans for the purpose of State Advances in the Dominion.” Certainly they iind the banks like short-dated loans on city securities, in a growing young country where increased population forces up values, so permitting at the time-of mortgage or loan rearrangements, and increase of interest. It is a . statesman’s task to direct capital into channels producing exports or substantially increasing value in the process of manufacture, and preferably in this country at this inoiniuit, primary production, for where capital is directed, labour will go. q’here is indeed money to burn in New Zealand, and yet the working farmer is starving for want of it, and being forced off the land, and the Reform Government is directly responsible for this. 'Take one example alone, and that is the giving to local bodies permission to borrow .at a higher rate of interest. This alone drew thousands of pounds from the land. The Reform Administration has resulted in reversing the sound position in which the Liberals left the country, in that, about 60 per cent, of the population was on the hind aud 40 per cent, in the town in 1911, mid now there are nearly 60 per cent, in the towns and 40 on the land. “Economist” says: “Cheap and overplentiful money means dear land, speculation, and artificially-inflated values.” Yes. if you divert the money into the hands of men who speculate, but put it into the hands of working fanners, and see what happens. “Dear money makes cheap land” —yes. by forcing the hundreds of life-experienced farmers into our cities; yea. and on to the roads, and giving their land, plus all their savings and years of hard work into the hands of tl'ose who hold the money, and can fictitiously put up its Twice when it suits their purpose. “Economist” calls Sir Joseph Ward’s policy silly mid absurd, but qualifies his criticism with : "If the borrowed money is in addition not n substitution for money already invested in mortgage.” Of course, a lot of the money, mid perhaps nil. at first will go to save farmers who are nt breaking point. Sir Joseph Ward is going to do what the Hon. A. I). McLeod has been talking loudly about for five or six years: viz., save the work iug farmers on the hind, mid put Ilin thousands of them out of the cities buck <m to the land Finally. Mr. Editor, all “Economist's" lalk about exchange is merely n smoke screen for ho ought Io know all abotil n dairy eommiiiv importing nun-liinery to nay for its, but for. and how I lie banks threatened to put up their overdraft 1 nor cent, to make up for what they olainied was their rights in oxohange fees. y--ii can fool some of the neoiflo some of flic limo, mid you might fool some pooplo all ill- limo, but you eminol fool ..H it,.. io o'l ilia firn" 1 am. e 1,... A DIGGER. Napier, December 5,