OUR PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

Evening Star, Issue 6478, 20 December 1883, Page 4

OUR PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Other engagements. prevented me from reading your leader of the 14 th ins t. till late on Saturday night—otherwise I would have asked you before now to allow me to refer to it. You remark that "the ordinary expenditure is not specifically objected to except in one particular of Hospitals and Charitable Aid." To this I reply that if it is not it should be, seeing that for the year 1882-3 the ordinary expenditure exceeded tho ordinary revenue by L1G8,131, and for the current year 1883-4 the estimated expenditure exceeds the estimated revenue by L108,U2, and this, too, notwithstanding the imposition of an extra farthing property tax. But this year's deficiency, if we are to be guided by the revenue actually received for tho first eight months, without auy "vague statements of hostile critics and amateur financiers," will amount to somewhere over L 300.000. I shall not comment on your analysis of the vote of L 398,436 for roads and bridges for the current year, further than to state that my contention ia that these \vork3 being unproductive, the expenditure should bo borne nob on loans, but rather from land or ordinary revenues, or possibly from both. Again, I oanuot at all coincide with you that the vote of L8Q.052 for roads to open up lauds for sale is a justifiable charge against loans, while I agree with you that this expenditure is "clearly reproductive," and that, if judiciously spent, it would enhance the value of the land for Bale; yet I cannot think that such enhanced valua ehould be secured by means of loans, but rather from land revenue. If the land will not bear all its own expenses, such as administration, surveys, opening-up roads before sale, etc., etc., then I argue that the best thing the Government could do would bo to give it away and allow the selectors to do these things themselves and at their own expense. You quote a statement made'by the late Minister of Public Works'' that it is uot the iatentionof the Government to make any further special grants in aid of couuty roads and bridges." Now, my experience teaches me that all Buch promises are only made to be broken tho following session. Take for example the various promiaes as to tho allocation of tho land revenue : some of them ratified by Act, and yet not one of them have been fulfilled. Your analysis of the votes of last session for public buildings may be strictly correct. I have not had time to examine them minutely, but some items referred to are apt to mislead your readers, For instaace, you state that only " L 5,000 was appropriated for tho new prison at Mount Cook " (City of Wellington). True, but prior to this vote being taken a plan was laid on the table of the House showing the estimated cost to be L 82,000; and in passing this L 5.009 vote tho Government committed the Parliament to tho whole sum of L 82,000. Then ag?.iu you say that only L 16.000 was voted for the Wellington post office ; but then you forgot to state that this was only a supplement to a former vote of the previous session, and that the estimated cost of the building ia about L 32.000. You remark that this "will be the head office of the Colony," andagain that " the amount voted does not appear extravagant for the purpose " ; and in justification of the vote you remark : " The budding intended as a post office for Dunedin cost, if we recollect aright, double the money"; and that Oamaru is to have a post office estimated to Co3t L 6.500. To these remarks I reply that the Wellington post office does not do the amount cf business of Auckland or Danedin, nor (if I mistake not)' Christchurch ; that everyone out of Wellington who has seen the building condemns the extravagance; that the Colonial Bank building here was erected for a post offico by the Ministry of 1363 against the protest of every Otago member, and was charged against the provincial revenue; that the Provincial Government and Council protested against its ever being used as a post office, and it thus was otherwise dealt with as provincial property ; and further, that the expenditure of L6,fioo for a post office in Oamaru, which I hold to be gross extravagance, is no justification for Buch lavish expenditure elsewhere,—l am, otc,, William H, Reyxolm. Montecillo, December 17.