MR DAVID JONES AND HIS FIGURES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 253, 28 November 1914, Page 8

MR DAVID JONES AND HIS FIGURES.

To the Editor of THE SUN. v ! Sir,—The "Lyttelton Times" on November -25 criticised figures that I had used, aud which they stated wey,e misleading and inaccurate, aud conclude by saying that I owed an apology to the public. I wrote the following reply to the editor on the same date, proving that my statements were accurate. The editor, however, declines to publish -my letter, and leaves his readers under the impressioir that I have made a' false .statement: Jn the Kaiapoi electorate I am fighting a big section of the Liberal. Party ~whq have been launched into this electorate, particular men being chosen to suit different localities, and now in addition, the above despicable tactics are being adopted." I should be glad, in the interests jbf fair play, if you would publish this correspondence so that the public may realise! what the Ward-ite party really is.— Yours, etc., ' DAVID JONES. [The following is the fetter which the "Lyttelton Times' 7 refused to publish:] November 25, 1914. : Sir, —I note you are criticising my statements with reference to State fire insurance. The statement I made is as follows, and is from official sources: —" State fire insurance promts in two years and four months under Ward; £16,248; first two years under the Massey Government, £38,331. This year's report of the office says that the business for the year was the largest and most profitable in the life of the office, and the reserve funds at the. close of the year stood at £65,672, as against £48,213 for the previous year. The increase in the volume, of business in the Public Trust Office shows that in 1912, 6694 estates were administered, valued at £9,493,959, and the net profits were £25,919. After two years of Keform Government the returns at the end of 1914 show this enormous increase: —Number of estates in 1914, 9223; total lvalue, £12,283,883; net profit, £29,222, i You say that I owe an apology for'makj ing alleged misstatements. You will realj ise now that no apology is needed, but' I thank you for 'giving me this 'opportunity of placing the facts before i,he ; public ; , and vindicating the Government against the charges which have been made. Your criticism of Mr Massey's speech last night is just about as effective as your criticism jof me. If wc take the two years under Mr Massey, we find that he increased the debt £4 9/6 per head, while in the last two years under Sir Joseph Ward the increase in the public debt was £5 7/4, and this does not include the purchase of the Manawatu line. In a comparison of the two. years Mr Allen proved that the present Government had borrowed £2,000,000 less than the previous Government. You repeat also the old fiction of the £12,425,000, and evidently wanted to continue the false impression created by Sir Joseph Ward and his various phonographs; that this is to be borrowed in one year. You know, of course, quite well that much of it is spread over'several years, while the authorities to borrow are statutoryauthorities left by the..previous Government, which may or may not be exercised. You accuse us still further by stating that Mr Massey has increaßefr thei burdens of the people by -3/1' 'per annum, as against .the yearly increase of l/ 6£ per annum under the Liberals, when the actual increase under Sir Joseph Ward during the last two years was 18/4. Sir Joseph Ward and his various phonographs are making the statement that the taxation has increased between 1911 and 1914 by 10/3 per head, but omit to state the all-important fact that during 15 months of this, time they were in office and'ineur-' ring liabilities. —Yours, etc.,

DANID JONES.