CAPTIOUS CRITICISM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 14061, 16 May 1906, Page 6

CAPTIOUS CRITICISM.

The “Otago Daily Times” 'still contends, though quit© so confidently x as it did a for/ da5 r s ago, that the Premier attempted, in thcXabstract of the public accounts ■which wd published last week, to pass off the balance for the year as a not surplus.” “Wo believe the public will agree,” it says, “ that it is distinctly of importance that it should have the account® of the colony presented to it in a straightforward manner, and obviously this demand is not satisfied w|ien th© Colonial Trea- ‘ surer claims to have a ‘ not surplus ’ on the year’s operations of a sum nearly £300,000 in excess of that which, upon the most generous calculation, he is legitimately entitled to claim.” The best answer to this will bo to reprint, just as they were supplied by Mr Seddon, the figures by which the results for year were shown in the accounts: —

The position could hardly be expressed more clearly. The excess of receipts over expenditure for 1905-06 is shown as £527,759, and the amount brought forward from the previous year as £261,036, making a total of £788,795. If Mr Seddon had had any intention of deceiving the public or of presenting the accounts in anything but “ a straightforward manner,” lie would surely have made some effort to disguise the facts. But instead of that he set them out with absolute frankness, and in a form that made them plain to the “meanest understanding,” If our contemporary will look up the .last number of the “ Gazette ” it will see that the accounts are published just -as we have stated them, without any mention of a “ net surplus” or any other kind of- “surplus.” Its other contention, that Mr I Seddon should have confined himself I to the figures given in his Financial ] Statement when comparing his expendi-

ture with his estimates, is simply childish. Tho Statement was delivered on July 25, more than throe anonths before Parliament was prorogued, and it would have been .absurd to expect the Treasurer, at that stage of the session, to tie himself down to the details of his expenditure for tho following year. It is true that Mr Seddon’s estimates at that time amounted to £6,960,713, the sum to which our contemporary -wishes to bind him now, but he was careful to explain that they would be increased by “the amount appropriated in the supplementary estimates,” and tho “ subsequent assistance ” given to the Public Works Fund. The supplementary estimates wore brought -down on October 30, and we cannot gueas at any reason wdiy they should not bo included in the Premier’s comparison. The appropriations, as our contemporary admits, represent tho Treasurer’s matured proposals, and they should obviously form the basis of any comparison between tho Minister’s promises and his performances.

'Receipts— Revenue .... Sinking Fund accretions . Other receipts £ 7,53-1,359 65.000 710 £ 7,650,090 7,122,310 Expenditure— Permanent appropriations Annual appropriations 2,370,107 4.252,233 Excess of receipts over expenditure Balance March 31. 1303 _ . Transferred to Public Works Fund 1 . 761,036 500,000 527,750 Balance from last year . 281,036 Balance March 31, 1906 . £738,795