THE PUBLIC REVENUES ACT.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 118, 14 November 1902, Page 4

THE PUBLIC REVENUES ACT.

The latest apology for the "£4O steal" and tho "Seddon Blot" (known as the Public Revenues Act 1900), under which it was perpetrated, is that that transaction was in no way dependent on the Act in question, but could have been constitutionally done under what had been the law of New Zealand for the past thirty years. We will take another opportunity of dealing with the subject from the legal point of view, but it is singular that the apologists of the measure, and of the "steal" have waited for more than two years to discover that socalled fact, and that its discovery was only made after Mr. Seddon and Dr. Findlay had returned to the colony after an extended absence in the Old Country, and after the latter gentleman had consented to stand for Wellington City in the Government interest. Ever since the. Act was passed members on both sides of the House have hurled the strongest mvectivc against it, and to this day the "£4O steal," which was perpetrated under its provisions, almost before the Governor's signature to the Act was dry, is n by -word among those who regard honesty as an essential factor In political life. Now, however, when, a general election is close at hand, and the Government sees

clearly that the Public Revenues Act and the "steal" stink in the nostrils of the more thoughtful among the electors, they conveniently discover that the " steal " could have been constitutionally perpetrated any time during the ' past thirty years. In this conneceion we may point out that when ihe Bill was going through the House at the close of the session of 1900 it was a matter' of common knowledge that the passing of Clause 3 was necessary to enable members to vote themselves the extra £40 each, but it was never for a moment suggested that such action could have been taken under thf law as it stood. As a matter of fact, and of practice, the Auditor-General had previously set his foot down and refused to pass votes which could not legally, be j made under the statute law, and it needed that particular Clause 3 to "put him in his place," and convince him that Parliament and the Government was superior even to the law. That superiority has been convincingly shown, on several occasions since the Public Revenues Act 1900 was passed, but never before, which in itself constitutes a pretty strong reply to the statements of Dr. Findlay and the Premier" that the "steal" could have been "constitutionally" perpetrated under the law as it previously existed. It^is refreshing to find that neither of the latest apologists of the Act have any excuse to offer for^the section which enables the Government to transfer money from one vote in a class to any other vote in the same class — a clause which, as we pointed out the, other day, Mr. Tanner, a supporter of the Government, voted against, and condemned in scatliing terms. In this respect Dr. Findlay's experience at- the bar wisely leads him to make the best of what he considers a good point, but to say nothing about the unanswerable arguments of the other side; trusting that the jury will lose sight of them altogether. But the most extraordinary statement made by Dr. Fiiidlay is this, that "there must be the power to decide what expenditure should be incurred by the Government of the day; they should leave its decision with the Government, and if the Government was unfit to look after its finances, ijb was cime ib was out of office." In other words, a Government should be trusted to audit its own accounts, and if the Auditor and the Treasury differ, the will of Ministers "must prevail. That really means a plea of guilty to all the charges in connection with the suppression of the Auditor-General, and a defiant declaration of an intention to commit the same offence again. If full and ample proof of the arguments used against the Public Revenues Act, 1900, are required, they will be found in Dr. Findlay's belated apology for that iniquitous measure..