MR JAMES ALLEN IN REPLY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13889, 25 October 1905, Page 6

MR JAMES ALLEN IN REPLY.

We are glad that Mr James Allen has at last found time to deal in some detail with the criticism of his Christchurch speech. The letter from him which we publish this morning may not help Ms case to any great extent, but it will at least show that he as not altogether indifferent to public opinion. The inaccuracies we pointed out in his speech were flagrant enough, and silence on his part, as he says himself, might have been easily misunderstood. He mow tries to escape from any further discussion of the “ (stock story” by reminding ns tljat when referring to colonial securities the other day we inadvertently quoted Victorian 4 per cents at 104 instead of at 105. He admits that w© did our best to rectify the mistake, and it was really of no Consequence to our argument. Mr Allen had stated that Now Zealand stocks were lower than those of any of the Australian States with the exception of New South Wales, and' our point was. to show that New Zealand 4 per cents, which represent two-thirds of our debt, were higher than those of Victoria and Queensland. The correct quotations were— New South Wales 109, New Zealand--107, Queensland 106 and Victoria 105. New South Wales 4 per cents have since fallen to 108, so that this colony’s redative /position is* even setter than we represented it to he. W© do • not, as wo have frequently explained before, attach a great deal of importance to these figures, l>ut if Mr Allen is quite disinterested in Ms concern for the credit of the colony he may find some comfort in the latest quotations for 81- pea' cent securities. On Saturday these stood’ as fol-lows:—-South Australia 99|, Now Zealand 99i, Tasmania 69, New South Wales 98, Victoria 98, Queensland 98, West Australia 95*. Our oorrespond-

ent’s airy method of dismissing our contention that the accumulated interest is a factor in the price of stocks is scarcely ingenuous. If he had compared the prices of New Zealand stock in different years it would have been sufficient for him to select corresponding dates for his comparison; but when he compared the prices of this colony’s stocks with the prices of Australian stocks, he, of course, should have taken account of the accumulated interest. It was the neglect of this vital point that constituted the unfairness of his remarks in the Canterbury Hall. It is not for us to antieipata the Premier’s reply to the question which Mr Allen has placed upon the Order Paper, but if we are to go on discussing this subject, it is worth mentioning that the rise in 4 per cents since last May, calculated on the volume of stock, far more than counterbalances the decline in 8 per cent®. Figures proverbially may bo employed to prove anything, and probably stock figures lend themselves ttf an endless controversy more readily than any others. Mr Allen’s statements in regard to the roads and bridges vote, however, are more tangible, and we are simply astounded that he should attempt to patch up with a string of meaningless figures the shattered fallacies of his newspaper friends. His first statement was that 65 per cent of the money voted for roads and bridges in Canterbury last year was expended in Westland. When we showed that not a single penny had been misappropriated in this way, his friends substituted the milder charge that Canterbury had received a great deal less than its fair share of expenditure, and Westland a great deal more. In their ardour for their champion, they fixed 51 per cent as the proportion that should have been expended in each province, and then proceeded to give a list of votes that had remained unexpended in Canterbury.- This “correction,” as Mr Allen, with his nice sense of humour, calls it, proved a terrible tactical blunder. They should hay© confined themselves to loud and vague denunciation of the methods .'of the Government. They are accustomed to that style of political warfare, and it is tolerably safe. But when they gave that list of figures their case was lost, and Mr Allen’s inaccuracies were hopelessly exposed. Wo need not go over the whole ground again. We have shown that the £IOOO voted for the Hinds bridge was paid directly the local body demanded it, that the £6OO for the Heathoote Bridge was unexpended through no fault of the Government, and that the £SOO for the Bower Gorge Bridge was simply waiting the completion of the work. Thee© votes alone would have raised Canterbury's share of the expenditure almost to the proportion demanded by Mr Allen, but there were other votes amounting to considerably over £2OOO that were wholly at the disposal of the local bodies concerned. The Government could not pour thp money into their laps before they were ready to us© it, and yet Mr Allen, still, we suppose, with that nice sense of humour of his, deplores that we uphold a system “ under which such iniquities are possible.” We 'do not uphold the system, and iniquities may be possible, but to say that iniquities have been practised betrays either a reckless disregard for the truth or an astounding ignorance of the facts. We prefer to believe that Mr Allen, who confessed a little time ago that ho did not trouble to read the Liberal newspapers, has not made himself sufficiently acquainted with this section of the public accounts. The alternative would bo quite inconsistent with his high private character.