SETTLERS' AND WORKERS’ ADVANCES.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume III, Issue 146, 5 June 1913, Page 4

SETTLERS' AND WORKERS’ ADVANCES.

Me du-, tba: ..nr rc.ulci are nut reiving upon us to ex nose all the vjl lolly (imiaem figme.-, which our Napier evening euntem-poi-ary purpons to quote from official sources in order to support its attacks on Reform administration. The task would be altogether beyond our time and space. We tberetore select, from time to time, a few of th? many instances which are stibinitietl for acceptance by a public without ready means of checking them. Having before touched sptvlalh upon i> misquoLit ions wall reference to Advances to Sel-tlci-s and to Workers. and these i iiaiitig been since repeated, we may lie pardoned for aaain reverting to them, with no hope, however, that they wil] not be reiterated. As our contemnui-ai-y lias itself said. "Why waste words ?” Let us merely place, one below the other, verbatim quotations from the “Telegraph” and from the "Official Year-Book" of 1912.

The “Dailv Telegraph." 30th -Mat. 1913:— "These (Reform) journals have said that the Ward Government did not make enough profit for the State in conducting the Advances to Settlers Department, as if half-u--million in 13 years is not good enough. ” The Year-Book: — “The Advances to Settlers Office was established by an Act passed in 1"D1,” over 17 years prior to the making up of the balance-sheet lor all transactions up to 31st March, 1912, which shows the item, “Profit and Loss Account, £'2tb.6O2 19 7." “Daily Telegraph.” 2nd June. .1913: — “For the tear 1911-12 the Ward Administration advanced loans to 1900 workers for home-building, the total advanced being £612,910. the average advance on freehold being £3lO and on leasehold £220." Year-Book :—

“The advances actually granted during the year numbered 1621 tor an aggregate <il £543,840. The tenures upon which the loans were made were: £ Freehold - - l.'.J.'i loans 528,315 Leasehold - 69 loans . . 15,525 Tm.ils 1621 t5J3>10." As the averages given by the Telegraph” work out with approximate correctness on the true aggregates actually given by the YearBook. there can be no doubt that the "Telegraph” adopted the larger and incorrect aggregate figures with deliberate intent to mislead a-- to th? uiliiiiie of advances made by the "Liberal’/ Covcrnincs.’t during the year.

In its article of 2nd inst. il cites a singie case in which a "thrifty Napier resiii ml” - all the ‘Telegraph” and “Times” complainants are thrifty, steady and deserving—was disappointed in getting the full amount for which he applied. On th“ strength uf this it goes on to ■•:;:y, "this sort of thing is going on all over the country.” Perhaps we may also conclude that “the same sort of* thing was going on all over the country” under * Libiiral” administration, w!m,: the i’earLook tells us tb.ac, dull*’; fi'e y -ar ending 31st March, 1912, there we-.’i. .’.99 applicants who were cither wholly refused, or were proffered amounts which they did not care to take up. Might not the "Telegraph:;" thrifty frirml hate L on emo of these •’■f'9 had he mad' the application a year earlier than he did / Another point that may be mentioned is that under

"Liberal” administration the supervision cf the expenditure of the money lent was of the most casual and superficial character. As a consequence the Department and its patrons were, well exploited by jerrybuilders, and nothing like true value was got either in material .or workmanship for many of the advances made. Such securities as these are, of Loui -e. .--.iibjei t to rapid dmerioration, and the small reserve fund which has been established out of so-called profits ivould be entirely inadequate to meet losses which must accrue should the securities be tin..wn on Hie hands of th,- Department. A strict inspection of both material and work is now enforced. The workers may rest assured that adtanees will continue to be made to the full extent to which legitimate resources will permit, and that, under lhe economical administration of Reform, they will get more real benefit for the liabilities which they incur than they did from an administration whose chief aim was io maintain a reputation for “libertt lit v. ’ ’