THE NEW ZEALAND LOAN BILL.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume X, Issue 1937, 23 May 1888, Page 2

THE NEW ZEALAND LOAN BILL.

It is difficult to understand why a certain section of the New Zealand press should have raised such a howl about the New Zealand Loan Bill. The measure was rendered necessary by a flaw in the Loan Act passed last session, and simply re-enacts a law which received deliberate Parliamentary sanction last session. If the whole truth were known, probably the chief reason why some of the Wellington- papers are so bitterly opposed to the Act is because their outrageous attempt to get the North Island Main Trunk Railway via. the Marton route has been exposed as a swindle, which we have, from the very outset, always maintained it to be. The Wellington people live in constant dread of a rival harbor at New Plymouth and of a rival port at Auckland for Taranaki and West Coast trade. They are perfectly well aware of the fact, as yet only half appreciated in this district, that the Manawatu Railway Company, by the break in the line, adds> freight equal to 50 miles or more of extra distance between Taranaki and Wellington, consequently if a Government through line to Auck-

land were constructed, tbe latter port would be tbe nearer of the two, so far as cost of freight from this district is concerned. In spite of this attempt to manufacture political capital out of the Government's determination to Bave the error made in last year's Loan Bill corrected without any re-opening of the whole question of loans, we believe the great body of electors will thoroughly approve the step. The whole business of f he colony, and of the Government since last session has been conducted upon the distinct understanding that the Government were to raise one million of loan money for public works, exclusive of the balance of the money available for tbe North Island Main Trunk railway. The Act passed last session set forth a distinct undertaking, on behalf of Parliament, that such was their wish and their intention. Only men who would unhesitatingly break a contract on the strength of a slight verbal flaw in some apparently unimportant clause, or who who think nothing of a breach of the spirit of a law provided the letter o£ the law is not violated — only men, in fact, who think lightly o€ a gross breach of faith, provided it suits their private ends, could approve of the repudiation of last year's Loan Act, which is so unblushingly advocated by some of the Wellington journals.

We regret that Sir F. Whitaker should have been betrayed into using tbe language of an alarmist in order to overcome an unexpected opposition to the Bill in the Upper House. The passing or not passing of any Loan Bill would certainly not bring insolvency upon New Zealand. But it would undoubtedly cause very grave embarrassment in financial circles j it would involve the waste of enormous sums of money already locked up in incomplete and consequently unproductive works. For this reason, if for no other, Sir F. Whitaker was justified in making a determined stand against this attempt to re-open the whole question of loan expenditure when Parliament was simply asked by Government to ratify its action of last session, and to amend an accidental error which had crept into the Loan Act, Last session Parliament formally and deliberately agreed to a one million loan. Even if it should now repent its action, common honesty and good faith require that it should correct any accidental error in order to ratify the plain contract then made.