The Otago Witness.

Otago Witness, Issue 1340, 4 August 1877, Page 13

The Otago Witness.

DUNEDIN, SATURDAY, AUGUST 4.

We have got so accustomed to regard the statements of our Treasurers with a degree of suspicion, and have so long been familiar with attempts to cover up deficiencies in a cloud of figures, that we are disposed to approach each successive Financial Statement much as a shying horse does a wheelbarrow. On the present occasion the state of things disclosed by Major Atkinson's figures as to the revenue and expenditure of last year does not entirely reassure us. That there should be a surplus of £148,220 on the year, when a deficiency was so probable, is a statement which we find it difficult to digest. We hope it may be true, but we think that, a priori, it is very unlikely ! to be so. We ask ourselves uncomfortable questions as to whether the whole interest for the year, and all the year's proper charges and burdens, are really brought to account. It is quite im- j possible, until the accounts and tables which accompany the Statement reach us, to arrive at any very definite conclusion on this, and many other points, on which a judgment must depend as to the merits of the account keeping of the Government, and their proposals as to the future. But so far as we can judge from the details given of the revenue, it does appear to hare turned out better than wa3 expected. The deficiency in, the Customs receipts seems to have been nearly made up by the increase in railway profits and other items, «o that the net decrease on the year is reduced to £3895, when compared with the estimate. The railways did not indeed gross so much as estimated, but the expenditure of the traffic department was proportionately j less, so that the net result was a profit j of £87,924, against an estimated profit of .£84,244 — in reduction of interest, We need hardly say, that if not the whole, at least the chief part of this , was earned by the Otago and Canterbury lines. The Treasurer claims a saving on votes amounting to £123,566 for the year, and estimates , the saving for next year on the Armed Constabulary and Police force alone at £33,000. The compensation paid to discharged Provincial officers, together with numerous other Provincial liabilities, is charged to loan, thus helping to swell the heavy amount j of unproductive expenditure already thus placed on the back of our posterity. But the most unsatisfactory portion of the Statement is that which interprets the ideas of the Government as to "localising the Land Fund." It appears to be the Treasurer's policy to make Canterbury and Otago pay out of this "localised" Land Fund all that the other less fortunate Provinces cannot pay, and so to produce equilibrium, by taking away with one hand what is given with the other. What the items are which make up this formidable charge of £109,000 against the Ofcago and £58,000 against the Canterbury land funds, we are as yet in ignorance ; but it is evident that these two Provincial districts are to be asked to pay because they have wherewith to pay ; and the other " less wealthy " districts are to be left alone 1 because they have nothing beyond a little pocket money. The Land Fund 1 is to be strictly localised, but the liabilities are not to be localised, but generalised, and the two "wealthy" members of the community are to pay the reckoning for all the rest. This is localising with a vengeance; and we should imagine such unequal justice will be stoutly resisted by Canterbury and Ofcago members as only inserting , the thin end of the wedge to introduce the Communistic idea of levelling down

the rich to the level of the poor. But if this idea be carried out, why should not Otago sue, in forma pauperis, for a part of the revenue of her more wealthy neighbour — Canterbury ? Ife would be more in reason if the latter had to pay oub of her overflowing exchequer the larger amounb of £109,000. In fact we begin to think that the Cantei'bury and Otago Land Funds should be treated as one ; we should rather like to be " levelled up " to the Canterbury standard just now. Ifc vould be better for us to be Oommunised altogether, and to have a year or two of the sweets to be derived from sharing our neighbour's wealth. But as we have never asked, that, we object to be made to pay for services which have been rendered 'to ' the rest of the Colony for nothing. We are asked to be thankful that; a sum of about £40,000 for Education' is" no longer to be charged to the Land Fund, and then we are told that we must pay - up this odd £109,000 which we did not dream that we owed. With the certainty that we shall have to_ pay as well our full share of the Treasury bills which our "less wealthy" friends cannot pay, we strongly object to this ingenious proposal. It is -true that we knew where this sort of thing would end. We are not, it seems, to be asked right out to subsidise our Northern^ poor neighbours out of our own proper estate, but, under the plea of temporary arrangements, we are to be • wheedled . out of the money by indirect means. Major Atkinson has been studying Sam Slick's memorable advice to hia friend in trouble: "You didn't orfcer have stole that watch j you orfcer have traded for it " — the result in each oase being the same.