MR JAMES ALLEN IN REPLY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13889, 25 October 1905, Page 5

MR JAMES ALLEN IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —My life its pretty full just now, and I can ill spare tame to answer newspaper criticism. Lest, however, silence be taken as acquiescence, in the justice of your journal’s remarks on a speech I recently delivered in Christchurch, I steal a few moments to have the pleasure of again putting you right. Your version of the “ Story of New Zealand Stocks” broke down because you based an argument on wrong figures. You have admitted the error, and have, therefore, done the best you can to rectify the mistake, hut the blame attaches to you directly, whereas, in. regard to other matters, I believe you have been unwittingly misled. Your own' accuracy has been discounted, and it is obviously necessary to check all the figures you produce out of your own brain. 1 have learnt that it is also necessary to check figures supplied by the Right Hon R. J. Seddon, and I, will presently allude to some inspired from such a / source that evidently need careful scrutiny. I had hoped that the ‘ ‘ correction ’ ’ yon have' received from the Christchurch “Press” would have sufficed, and that there would bo no necessity for me to assist to put your readers in mo rigijit path. You have, on a previous occasion, sought to explain away the fall ll in Now Zealand 3 per cent stocks by saying that I had taken'no note of “ interest paid.” Any ordinary reader will see that in making a comparison it does not matter whether interest had been paid or not, so long as one took the various .stocks at the same time in the year. If I compare stocks in October, 1905, and October, 1904, interest will be “paid” or “not paid,” as the case may be, in both instances, and tire conditions being the same the comparison is fair and just: jint why shut your eyes to ijhe fact? Would it not be bettor to try and find the cause, and then Ve .may hope to apply the remedy. lam asking in Parliament of the Colonial Treasurer “ whether' lie was correctly .reported in the Dunedin “ livening Star ” of May 25, 1905 : 1 Since the payment of the interest the Now Zealand stocks had begun, to rise again, and with, a surplus of £761,000 he was looking forward to them going up further still ’ —as Now Zealand 3 per cent stock on May 12, 1905, stood at 87£, and in September, 1905, at 87, and on October 13 at 86J, will he explain the reason for the continuous fall, and why the so-called surplus of : £761,000 has not caused the rise he anticipated ?” Yon can answer this question how- you will. My reply to it is that the fall is due to the administration of the Government, that a glorious country like New Zealand, with all its wealth, 'ought to have its stock a long way at the top of one list of Colonial securities. As to your criticism of the 18 per cent of roads and bridges money spent in the Canterbury, road district and 63 per cent in Westland, I must say it was ingenious, but yon were like the rifleman who was detailed to fire at, on© target but fired at another. The shot docs not count. Yon have been firing at the wrong target. You have been aftemptin-g to- excuse the- wrong done. ” Qui s’excuse s’accuse.” -A leading Canterbury journal should not condone a great wrong done to Canterbury, rather should if bring to justice those who did the wrong. But I did not raise the point to create provincial jealousy, hut only to condemn the principle by as forcible and homely an illustration as I couH find. If Parliament allocates money for expenditure in certain districts, by what right does the Administration alter the proportion of the allocations ? Why should the representatives of the people surrender to the Executive the powers of the purse; with -all the influences attached to the use of the same? Had I said that money had been taken from Canterbury and used for Westland I should have been very. near mark, for I find that the total allocation for roads, and bridges last year was £297,485, and the -amount expended £150,292, or -51 per cent. Each district was, therefore, entitled to 51 per cent of its authorisation. Canterbury was, therefore entitled to £3973,. and received £1405, or minus £2568. Westland was entitled to £10,331, and received £12,817, or plus £2486. Would it not, therefore, have been quite foor to say Canterbury’s money was spent in Westland?

In an attempt to cloud the issue you have garnered from Wellington a rto ;e of figures that have nothing to do with the main issue, and which I cannot find to he'accurate., I instance a few, viz., railway construction, Canterbury amount voted £68,000, does not correspond with the Public Work® appropriation and statement. Additions to open hues: Canterbury, voted £23,704 and expended £49,338, is a purely arbitrary allotment, at any irate as far as tho vote is concerned, for Parliament only voted lump sums, such--as Huvupni to Bluff £30,408, interlocking signal gear and fixed signals £20,544, rolling stock £112,000, workshop machinery £BOOO, Wes tin gho use brake £85,000. So with regard to telegraph extension, your' table allocates £17,500 to Canterbury. No such specific vote appears in the appropriations of last year, but a lump vote of £BO,OOO. .This allocation is therefor© arbitrary. Once more I write, “ Qui s’excuse s’accuse,” and I am only sorry to see that a journal which should uphold justice being done to Canterbury should seek to excuse the wrongdoer and uphold the system under which such iniquities are nossible.—l am, etc., JAMES ALLEN. Wellington, October- 23, 1905.