THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1897.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10338, 13 January 1897, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1897.

One of the most useful tasks to which the new Parliament could devote itself next session would be to ascertain how much loss the country had sustained by the Socialistic labour experiments we have been Indulging id. The largest of these has been the co-operative system of executihg public works. This lias now been in operation for several j years. It was one of those many things respecting which New Zealand was supremely proud, as leading • other nations. When any objection was made to it we were told that we had shown an example to the world, that the success of oar system had been so conspicuous that the London County Council had adopted it, and had found that it was a great and beneficent idea, This was thought to be quite sufficient answer to every objection. Well, it was undoubtedly the case that the London County Council did adopt a system which was practically the same as ours, although in London it was surrounded by many safeguards which we have not thought it necessary to adopt. But it is also a fact that the London County Council have found that the system leads to gross jobbery, and that under, it the work has cost much more than it otherwise would have done, It has been found on investigation that the Works Department (to use the words of the Times in a leading article) "has deliberately and systematically presented false statements of its operations." As a result of an inquiry, seven or eight officials in responsible positions, including the manager, have been found guilty of connivance in cooking the accounts to show that the co-operative system had been a success, and, with the exception of one, who is singled out for severe reprimand, they are declared unfit to remain in the service of the Council. And yet there is no idea that these officials cooked the accounts for personal gain. Not a penny seems to have been embezzled. But the Works Committee had come under the domination of "the Progressives" of the Council, or that committee was largely composed of Progressives, and the officials wanted to make out a good case , for their employers. We can make our readers understand the position by a local reference. When any question has been made here of whether or not the cooperative works were profitable for the colony, the Premier has replied by quoting the reports of the permanent officers of the Public Works Department, and by showing that the cost did not exceed the estimates made by the engineers. The case in London is just as if a committee had been appointed here, and had reported that the reports of the officers were written to please the Minister of Public Works, who had originated the system, and that the estimates were in all cases purposely made too high. It has frequently been said here that these things were done, but we have never been able to obtain such an inquiry as has taken place in London. The Times says The point to be dealt with just now is, that the Works Department, has deliberately ' and systematically presented false statements of its operations. We want to know why these were made, and, in particular, why the officials came to the conclusion that the making of , them would be agreeable to their employers?" In New Zealand we have practically no knowledge and no control. A system of doing works was instituted for political purposes. It has enormous advantages in a party point of view, especially in the case of a general election. Every officer of the department knows that the best of all plans for rendering himself a persona grata to the Minister is to make a high estimate of what a certain work is worth, and to send in a eulogistic report upon how the work has been carried out.' At a meeting of the London County Council on November 17, Lord Dunra veh put it that the bogus transactions and excessive prices that had been revealed "were due to a. desire to bolster up some particular economic theories' of '. a party • for political motives." Here are some of the statements made by witnesses " When we found we were going to have a loss, . we took the profit from one job and' gave ' it to another; it was a system of levelling up and down." Large additions were made; to Colney Hatch Asylum by the co-operative system, just as large. additions > have been made to the asylum atAvoudale, and here is the plan adopted, according, to the statement of ' a' witness, to' make tilings smooth. • ' _ The principal clerk made up an imaginary list of materials from the works at Colney Hatch, ,v amounting, as valued by hint, to £1892, specially obtained,the signatures of two foremen to the bogus, transfers, and passed , the amount to the credit of Colney Hatch and: the debit of the Heath Asylum 1 Bexley, and Leisham. The materials represented by this, transfer never went to the job at all. ; Certain materials which really' did go'.were' represented by ; sundry subsequent transfers u valued at £1360, 1 bona fide transfers 'as to materials, but orer-valuad to the extent of £270. - • Seyeral attempts have been made during the last three sessions to get an independent inquiry into how the cooperative system lias acted. We want to know, in the first place,' whether the estimates of the engineers were fair, or: whether they were made high to please' the Minister, and for the purpose of showing that the system .was a success. ; Arid next we want to know how the works turned out. Last session, Mr. W. Hutchison,' a' steady Government-

supporter," proposed that there should be an inquiry, but the Premier decline fk to grant it. The plea of Ministers m - doubtless be, that if. the systemiltedPif £100,000 a-year to the colony it is fuJlv ' | worth that to them ft a party. 'If ft true that the London County Council: followed the example and pattern' of New Zealand, as we have always b&jj ■ told they did, at all events they hiiv t v now found out that . they thereby nidi a costly mistake. : • f ;>;'