The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 15, 1911. MR. MASSEY’S MISTAKES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7853, 15 July 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 15, 1911. MR. MASSEY’S MISTAKES

The leader of the Opposition has made what is termed a “reply” to our criticism, published in these columns on Thursday, of his quite misleading utterances concerning the public debt. In his Wellington speech on July Gth jlr Massey complained that tho indebtedness per head had "risen by £ls 4s lid from 1894 to 1910, the figures being £57 8s lOd in tho former year and £72 13s 9d last year. Our comment on this was that it was obviously fairer to compare tho respective amounts in 1891, when tho Conservatives vacated tho Treasury benches, and 1910; that this comparison showed a rise of only £l3 Is lid per head; and, moreover, that as the rate of interest had been reduced during the Liberal regime by 15s lid per £TOO, tho actual annual charge per head of population had como down in tho period named from £2 13s 7d to £2 9s, giving tho country the use of nearly 22 per cent, more money at 9i per cent. less cost. Those operations, we argued, did not constitute tho reckless, blundering finance spoken of by Mr Massey. YVo proved beyond dispute that instead of tho loan money having been “ wasted to buy votes ” it had been wisely expended in developing tho country and assisting producers, tho results being a great expansion of tho country’s material welfare. In any case, wo asked, if these borrowings were inadvisable and indulged in not to benefit but to bribe the community, why had Mr Massey supported every loan? The “reply” of tho -Opposition leader is characteristic (and therefore unconvincing). He says; When dealing with fignres I make it an invariable rule to keep well inside tho mark. ... In stating the amount of public debt during a recent address I based ray figures on the last official returns, which placed the Dominion’s indebtedness at £72 , 13s 9d per head. As a matter of fact>, taking the, population as being one million, and our total indebtedness £81,009,000, the debt per head is £Bl per head, and oven that estimate is under-stating tho .case.

Wo can only interpret tins to mean that Mr Massey Was so scrupulously anxious not to exaggerate the position that, in . addressing his Wellington audience, he understated the indebtedness by £9 6s 3d per head. As a matter of fact, Mr Massey on July 6th was neither “ inside ” nor “ outside ” the mark—he was on the right mark on that isolated occasion. He was then referring to the net indebtedness. In his reply, ho changes from the net to the gross debt, adds in his customary loose manner the loans for the last financial year, ignores the existence of accrued sinking funds, understates the population by over a hundred thousand, and then—well, there is Mr Massey’s “reply”! The .main arguments advanced in our article are left unanswered. Mr Massey certainly furnishes us with a little surprise in the assertion that he and his followers “ always stood for closer settlement,’' and that the complaint of the Opposition is that “ the Government has not done enough with regard to opening up lands for settlement.” If this is intended as an effeowvo reply te our criticism, we can only say that, on the" contrary, it confirms our suggestion that in matters of political history and of present (political importance, Mr Massey’s mind is becoming bewildered. What we asked the leader of the Opposition for was a specific statement as to which, if any, of the country’s loans he ought not to have voted for, but did, and what extent he proposes to stop borrowing if the electors make him Premier at the coining polls. Wo still await Mr Massey’s reply.