PENNY WISE & POUND FOOLISH.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 136, 6 December 1909, Page 6

PENNY WISE & POUND FOOLISH.

The result of the voting in the House of Representatives on the proposed vote of £400 to Mr. W. P. Reeves as financial adviser to the Government in London did not come as a surprise to anybody who had had the opportunity of listening to the debate. Tho rejection of the item by 35 votes to 25 was quite in accordance with the preponderance of argument and' feeling displayed during the debate. Yet we are satisfied that a serious take has been made. The two points which found most favour with the opponents of the vote were the impression that the High Commissioner's office is costing us too much, and the record of various discourtesies attributed to Mr. Reeves or his staff while he was in charge. The first point we believe to be absolutely sound. Recent appointments in connection with the office have accorded very ill with the professions of economy with which they have been accompanied on this side of the world. There is certainly room for curtailment of the cost of our agency in London, but the House has decided to begin -at the wrong end. A demand for economy which has a solid basis has, with an unfortunate consequence, been made a ground for retrenchment in an entirely different direction. The neglect with which certain claimants upon the attention of the late High Commissioner were treated during their visits to London was an equally irrelevant consideration. Mr. Luke or Mr. Robertson may or may not have been received with the attention that they deserve, but what relevance has this grievance, however well founded, to a proposal, not to give Mr. Reeves another term as High Commissioner, but to take advantage of his experience and ability for the guidance of our financial operations in London ? There is something decidedly comic about such wrongs as were detailed by Mr. Luke, but they assume quite a tragic aspect when they are adduced to disprove Mr. Reeves's capacity in a sphere where it is really not open to challenge, and are actually allowed to prevail. It is impossible to relieve the Government from a large share of responsibility for the mishap. Of course, Sir Joseph Ward could not be expected to have a complete answer ready for the various personal grievances which figured so prominently during the debate. They were not the sort of thing that would be reported by the High Commissioner, even if he was aware of them, and consultation was impossible, even if otherwise desirable, because no notice had been given. But Sir Joseph Ward might have thrown a good deal mote energy into a repudiation of the relevance of such allegations to the matter in hand, and a similar remark applies to his treatment of the relevant part of the arguments adduced against the vote. He, of course, declared that the position of financial adviser was a very necessary one, but he did it in a very unconvincing way. He stated that un« , Jen the. appointment had been .worr*n>

ed, it would not have been made ; and also that Mr. Reeves would not accept the money unless he could give the country full value in return. Such weak stuff as this usually comes from a Minister who has to make a show of supporting an item on the Estimates of which personally he entertains a very low y opinion. We do not suggest that this was actually Sir Joseph Ward's position, but, whether because he regarded the vote as safe, or for the exactly opposite reason, he did not impress the ' House as ho should with the importance or the issue. For an indefinite number of years to come the key to our finances will be found in the London market, and as long as that condition lasts the need for wise and cautious advice from some authority on the spot in whom the country can place absolute confidence will be constantly felt. Even those who voted against the Government on Friday did not challenge lhe capacity of Mr. Beeves to fill such a position. He commands in a degree which nobody can rival the confidence both of his own fellowcountrymen and of the big financiers whose good will counts for so much in these matters. Estimated by way of a commission on the large transactions that he would be able to influence, the salary- of £400 would be an absolutely trivial sum. A sufficient indication of the value placed upon Mr. Reeves's services by experts familiar with both London and colonial finance is supplied by his appointment to the Colonial Bank directorate. It was not an expert vote which struck out the item intended to secure to New" Zealand the benefit of Mr. Reeves's wise counsel, and we hope that* the case may> be so put to fclie House that it will be glad to reverse the vote.' Much as we approve in general of any step in the direction of economy, we are convinced that in this instance a supposed economy is really an extravagance of the "penny- wise and pound-foolish" ordej\