A REPLY TO SIR J. G. WARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12600, 2 March 1903, Page 6

A REPLY TO SIR J. G. WARD.

(Fnosi Our. Own Coiiresfondsnt.) WELLINGTON, February 18. This afternoon I. bad a further interview with Mr W. Fraser, M.11.11.' for Wakatipu, in regard to the finances of the colony, more especially in regard to tho interview with Sir J. G. Ward,-.published in (ho Otago ; Daily Times. Mr- Frasor, in a brief but J lucid statement, was able to show where | Sir Joseph Ward had fallen into error. • But before proceeding to give Mr Fraser's ! statement I might- remark- that bis original 1 criticism was not in any way meant to be a I hostile one, but simply a.ll accurate Gumming j of the position as disclosed by the figures ; published in the Government Gazette. I ; might add also that Mr Fraser did not contend that "all" the borrowed money was ! ■ not wisely spent. Even several members of j j the Government party agree that a eonsider- ; able portion of the loan money lias not been ! siient to the best advantage. But let Mr Fraser speak for himself. 1 "Sir Joseph Ward," 110 said, "has dial- j ] lenged the accuracy of the figures I sup- ; plied. He says. ' Regarding the Consolidated Fund, I do not know how Mr Fraser arrived at tho conclusion indicated in his inter- | view with your Wellington correspondent, but from the official figures I am unable to arrive at a similar result to that indicate-d in the statement referred to.' This is not at all surprising," commented Mr Fraser, "seeing that tho thinking portion of the New Zealand public has long ceased to expect accuracy as (0 figures in Ministerial statements." " My figures," adcled Mr Fraser, " are correct, and are taken from the New Zealand Gazette of July 24 and October 30, 1902, and January 29, 1903. Sir Joseph

Ward's • figures rolating to receipts amd expenditure are' incprrcot, although apparently taken from the same source. I stated that tho rev6nuo for the nine months ending , December 31, 1902", had increased by £152,279 over the reoeipts for the oorfespoml- ' ing period of 1901, and that tho expenditure had increased during tho samo period by ' £157,310. Sir Joseph Ward puts tho in-cvca-sQ of rovewiuo at £157,405 and the increase of expenditure at £147,300. The discrcpancy from my figures in regard to the increase of revenue is owing to an error on Sir Joseph Want's part in compilation, while in regard to the increaso of expenditure, tlie discrepancy is owing to an error in computation. Sir Joseph' has omitted ; from the receipts for the nine months ond- ' ing Deoember, 1901, tho sum of £62,723. and from the reoeipts for the same period in 1902 the sum of £57,597. This has had the' oiTrct of unduly augmenting the increase of receipts by £5123. Deducting this amount from £157,405 (Sir Joseph's figures for the increase), you arrive at my figures— : viz.. £152,279. i "The abovo sums of £62,723 and £57,597 omitted by Sir Joseph represent th-e proceeds of debentures issued for the increase of the Sinking Fund, also recoveries, etc. Can anyone doubt that these items are importa-nt factors in tho receipts, and should ■ not have been omitted? ! "Sir Joseph 'put (he increase of expendii turn at £147,300. My figures aro £157,300. ; The difference of £10,000 is accounted for by • the fact that Sir Joseph has mado a mistako to that extent in adding up the several amounts taken from tho respoetivc quarterly returns from June to December, 1902. It is a somewhat singular fact that this mistako of £10,009 is repeated when Sir Joseph proceeds'to divide the incroase of expenditure : under the heads of permanent and annual. Tho increase of expenditure under annual appropriations is really £35.653, not £25,653. "When .Sir Joseph realises th"- error in a-(l(l.i.tipn which he has made, I fear his satisfaction over the assumed fact that ' the iheroa.se in revenue was £10.000 greater than the increase of expenditure' will be j short lived. As a matter of fact, the reverse ; is the oase: the increase of expenditure exceeds the increaso of revenue by £5022. "Sir Joseph'rays, 'As a matter of fair criticism, Mr Fraser should have pointed ( out that the Tovciiue had gone on increasing j during the same period.' My reply to that is that I did point this out. "It is not my intention to refer to the various side issuer Sir Joseph has raised in bis lengthy statement, but I feel bound to reply 1 to his criticism of my remark that ! the borrowed money was not wisely spent. ■ Sir Joseph prefers to assume that I rcferrod . t.o the sum borrowed for the Advanoea to ' Settlers and Land for Settlements Denartj ments. Ho knows full well that such is not the ease. I was-roferrine to the waste, . notoriously taking place, firstly, under the co-operative sv=tnm. »m!. secondly, to the i system under which Parliament acts as a ' bonrd of works for local needs, instead of 1 such functions being relc.ga.fod to the local -. bodies. ! "T -fistinated tho surplus in the ConI solidated Fmul at about £320.000. Sir i Joseph Ward savs it will be niileli above that sum. The Premier stated in Auckland | yesterday that it would be at least £250,000. : The 31st of March will disclose the correct I amount."