SIR JULIUS VOGEL IN REPLY To MR BRYCE.

Patea Mail, Volume XI, Issue 21, 3 June 1885, Page 3

SIR JULIUS VOGEL IN REPLY To MR BRYCE.

(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) * —— WELLINGTON, June 1. We are requested by Sir Julius Vogel to state that if Mr Bryee is Vogel to state that if Mr Bryce js correctly reported at Waverley, his statetraents are calculated to create seriously wrong impressions concerning the nature of the finance measures of last session. Sir Julius wishes to add that he is sure that it has not been through intention but through misapprehension that Mr Bryce is so much in error. As the statement appears it would seem that Mr Bryce alleges that, the Assembly authorised borrowing to the extent of nearly nine and a half millions without distinctly saying so. The natural inference would be that this amount was authorised to be borrowed on behalf of the colony, the colony being liable for repayment. The statement is, however, not correct, either as to the colony or the colony and other bodies being authorised by the measures of Inst session 40 increase their debt by the aggregate amount statad, Mr Bryce’s statement is that the following authority was taken lor borrowing: “For the North Island Main Trunk Railway, £1,000,000; loan of 1884, £1.500.000 ; loan to the extent of the accrued sinking fund, £2,792,808; and loan to the extent of the sinking fund of this year, £244,000. In addition to this direct loan there was authority for indirect, borrowing power for the Westport colliery, £500,000; guarantee on debentures, £150,000; Otago Harbour Board, £7so’oOD, bringing the total amount of borrowing authorised in one session to £9,436,808. All except the million for - the’North Island Railway was authorised last session. The philosopher’s stone which was to have saved the colony £244.000 a year turned out to be seizing the sinking fund.” As regards the | South Island Trunk Railway loan, it ' was authorised in 1882; all that was done last session w;s to give authority for its being raised, it having been stipulated that it should not bo raised until the line was approved by Parliament. The loan of 1884, one million and a half, was a new loan authorised last session merely to discharge and meet liabilities inherited from the Government of which Mr Bryce was a member. The loan to the extent of the accrued sinking fund may almost he said to be imaginary. The only ground for staling there was authority for such loan is that the power to convert loans outstanding without deducting the sinking fund accumulated was re-enacted. If that is what Mr Bryce meant, it was no new power, tor the same was already existent by the fourth clause of “ The New Znalnd Consolidated Stock Act, 1877.” The West; mt and Greymonth Harbour Board loans are presumably meant by the next reference. The Governor was only empowered to guarantee part of these loans. The Otago Harbour Board Loan Act, £750,000, was a measure to consolidate and convert loans outstanding, and included only a small addition to°the outstanding loans. Mr Bryce seems still to quite misunderstand the nature of the measure concerning the sinking fund. It is satisfactory to know that it was searchingly examined and approved at Home. As to the borrowing of last session, it may be said that it neaily all consisted of authority to take up engagements already contracted, excepting the £240,000 to provide an equivalent for the increases of the sinking fund after the 31st March, 1884, but not to take up any sinking fund already accrued.