MORE ABOUT THE LOAN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8654, 12 February 1914, Page 4

MORE ABOUT THE LOAN

It seems to us that the boastful Mr Massey, in his voluble rejoicings at To Aroha over the flotation in London of the recent loan, made the mistake of over-painting the picture. This was foolish, because the result is clumsy and inartistic. The Prime Minister said both less and more than a logical survey of the situation warrants. Let us examine the facts. This is what Air Alassey is reported by tho Press Association to have said. : The fact that tho 4A million loan recently raised in Loudon had been subscribed five times over in an hour and a half spoke volumes for the esteem. in which this country was held. The Government had reason to congratulate itself, too, for unless the English investor thought well of the people in control of this country ho -would not lend his money so freely-

Now, a fair examination of these two sentences suggests several points of interest and importance. The over-sub-scription of the loan certainly speaks well for the estimation in which Now Zealand is held by British investors. But what does that involve? It means that English money-lenders absolutely disbelieve “Reformers’” tales about Liberal finance and administration. It means that they regard the Tories’ accounts of “ waste and jobbery as political fabrications. It means that they regard the story about loan moneys being spent for the benefit of the Liberal party, the assertion by Mr Massey that the Public Debt Extinction Act was “ futile,” and the same gentleman’s impudent assertion that Sir Joseph Ward borrowed six and a half millions sterling in 1911 to buy votes with—it means that the British investor regards these allegations as baseless political falsehoods- That is one, and not the least valuable, of the lessons conveyed by the successful placing of our loan the other day in the London market. Another justifiable reflection is that with such an abundance of money offering, a more astute and experienced Minister than the Hon. James Allen, or a Government more concerned in the public interest and less in its own self-exaltation than Mr Massey’s, might have raised the money at a lower rate of interest. Even a quarter per cent, less would have saved the New Zealand taxpayer £11,250 a year, and as Mr Allen is understood to have postponed settling day for at least thirty years, that would have meant a saving of £337,500, to say nothing of interest on that substantial sum of money. As to the second sentence that we have- quoted from Mr Massey’s deliverance, wherein it is suggested that the British investor would not trust this Dominion so readily unless he w r ere enamoured of our Tory Government and all its works, we are afraid that poor Mr Massey has spoiled his picture by splashing on too much colour. He has tried to prove too much, and has excited the natural and obvious reply that when the Liberals were in office this country was able to borrow money readily at very much cheaper rates than are procured by the very boastful party of self-styled “ Reform.” If the Prime Minister will look at the public records he wall discover that before British investors ever heard of a Massey-Allen-Fisher-Pomare Government, before they had had the opportunity to fall in love with “ Reform or admire its alleged virtues, they lent to New Zealand over three millions at 3j per cent., nearly thirty-five millions at 3i P«r cent., and just on ten millions at 3 per cent.! So we ask Mr Massey to say, straightforwardly and honestly, if a readiness to lend four and a half millions at 4 per/cent indicates admiration for the present Tory Government, what does the loaning ot nearly fifty millions to his predecessors at from 3 to 31 per cent, suggest?