SIB ROBERT STOUT AND THE NEWSPAPERS.

Evening Star, Issue 726, 2 July 1887, Page 2

SIB ROBERT STOUT AND THE NEWSPAPERS.

' TO TOT EDITOR. Sib,—l was one o( the audience at the theatre, and heard Sir Robert Stout make some criticism of figures which a few days previously had been supplied by the ‘Daily Times* os showing the expenditure of his . - Government compared with that of the last year of their predecessors in office. Backed up as apparently was Sir Robert Stoat by communications from the Secretary of I he Treasury, I naturally concluded the 'Daly Times’ must be wrong; and my ? surprise may be imagined when, on looking up the accounts, which are readily accessible, the whole difference merely serves to supply the Premier with one of the most contemptible quibbles I have ever known used, even by himself. I suppose the 'Times’ can well manage to defend itself, and my object is not so much to do that as to show bow Sir Robert Stout imposes upon the public. There an two tables of figures given in the ‘ Times,’ the first of which deals with the annual expenditure of the various departments of the public service. I find that both the figures of the ‘Times’ and of the Secretary of the Treasury are taken from the same returns, namely, the appropriation accounts for the yean in question, all which are duly oertifled by the Secretary of the Treasury and Controller-General But the figures supplied the Premier by telegram are taken from the column headed “net expenditure,” and which does not include the “advances” within the year* while the ‘Times’ takes the column of . "total expenditure” including these advances. But the curious part of the matter has hen to be revealed. The only intention the ‘Times’ had in quoting the figures was to show that “the very first act of the Stout-Vogel Government was to increase the expen* diture by 1*86,400." If we take the figures of the Secretary for the Treasury they show that the Government really increased that expenditure 6y £92.892. So that while both sets of figures are comet, and the difference is a mere matter of account, the * Hines’ actually selected the figures most favorable to the . Government. i ..

fiut It Is When wo ‘1 rj flKnres given in tho ■'Tunes’tlnu iho qmnM r.t, of the Premier becomes n oit !*PP a^ n V h| Tl f ? are three sets of figures given in table, n d ♦ha nVii’nt in to compare tho first with the last (1833 8t with 18S7-8S), and the olesr arithmetical deduction is that between these periods the expendiluro incteaM by L 191.063. Bat there is spp weiitiy » tyP a e ,a P hiot 1 error in the centra figures of the table by which the year 1885-88 is used instead of 1881-So. From this Sir Robert Stout makoa the brld assertion that all the figures of the table are “ two years old." Yet it hi. oomes apparent at a glance that it the erroneous centre figures were struck out altogether the of expenditure already mentioned remains precisely the same, viz., L 191.083. There uuy be persons in thlaoommunlty who admire tho sort of argument to which the Premier resorts, but surely to all lovers a downright honest truth it must be a source of very great regret. -I am, etc., M> SoOBIB MiCRIS ,, K . Dunedin, July S.