The Timaru Herald. WADNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1890.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4802, 26 March 1890, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. WADNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1890.

Tjte statement made about a fortnight ago by the liangilikci Advocate that the Government had last session advanced some thousands of pounds to pay interest on the dobeutuvoa oC the New Plymouth Hurbour Board baa been commented on by tbe newspapers iv various parts of the colony, and some of our contemporaries bavo cast doubt on tbe story. It will be remembered that we ourselves bad an article on tho subject, and pointed out that m tbe earlier part of the session a question bad been aslted about alleged advaupes to tho New Plymouth Harbour Board, and that the Colonial Treasurer hud thereupon made a statement m which he said that the Government had paid the Board £2800, of which sum £(JGI bad already been recouped to the Treasury, out of the Board's share of the laud revonnc, nnd that there would bo ample funds from the H&tnn source and from rntcn on Native lands to recoup the balance before (laat) October or September. We added, however, that tho Ranyitikci Advocate seemed not to be alluding to those transactions, but to something which occurred later iv the session aud of which no mention was made m Hansard. We sec by our latest files that the .Adnocutc has taken notice of the newspaper comnjontß on tho ulleged transaction, and reiterates the Btateuicnt. It says : — •' We asmm; our contemporaries and the public generally that there cannot bo the smalleot doubt that the Government advanced the money. We think that neither the Government nor the Opposition leaders had any right to come to a secret agreement to supply this money. All transactions dealing with Ihoiiaands of pounds of tbo taxpayers' money should be open nnd above board, for tlio peoplo of New, Zealand have an indefeasible cluiui to know exactly what becomer) of this cauli which they supply to tho public; Troumiry. Thai a hum of between four and five thousand pounds

should be mysteriouslyspirited away,and not a word of explanation given to the taxpayers, is certainly not calculated to inspire confidence m the administration of the affairs of New Zealand. Of. course, we are aware that the New Plymouth people threatened to make default, and thus imperil the success of the Conversion Loan, which had just been placed on the London market. But suppose they had carried out their threat, what then ? We fail altogether to discover what the colony has to do with the New Plymouth loan. The London money-lenders advanced their cash to the New Plymouth Harbour Board, not to the colony. The nature of the security was made quite clear to them, und they have no more right to come on the colony, should the Harbour Board not meet its engagements, than would any of the debenture-holders of the Mai-ton waterworks loan m a like c.ise. Besides, the question of repudiation and default by tho New Plymouth | people h;id been " over and over again discussed iv Parliament and m the Press, aud it had been repeatedly proved m the clearest possible manner that the colony was m no way legally liable, and that it had no intention of becoming m any way responsible for tho debts of New Plymouth." Further on m the article the charge is again made and the transaction adversely commented on: — "The threat of tbe New Plymouth people to make default should have been treated with the contempt which such bluster always deserves. The Government and tbe leaders of the Opposition have established a most, vicious precedent, which may end no one can tell where. Here we find tho Ministers and the leaders of the Opposition m secret conclave, agreeing, under a stand-anddeliver menace, to advance four or five thousand pounds to the creditors of a needy local body. Why should not any other kindred institution come before the Government with a similar claim, and hold out a similar threat ? Both parties m the House would have the New Plymouth precedent flung m tbeir teeth, should they refuse to be compliant." These statements ore plain enough as far as they go, and we do not doubt the bona fides of the Rangitihci Advocate, but, m consideration of the nature of the charge, the story would bear amplification. If our contemporary knows so much, it seems certain that he must know more. The public ought to be given the names of these "leaders of the Opposition" and the exact nature of the oompuct ought to be disclosed. In tbe course of the Colonial Treasurer's statement when replying to the question p.bout tbe smaller advances which had been made prior to the session, he gave the House to understand that advances were frequently made to local bodies m anticipation of revenue. He did not, however, cite a case m point, aud we very much question whether he could have cited a case of exactly the same character as that of the New Plymouth Hurbour Board. If the story be true m its main features it is evident that the Colonial Treasurer did not regard the case as one of those m which, as he alleged, it had been the practice to make advances to local bodies. If it bad been so he would not have thought it necessary to consult with " the leaders of the Opposition." He would simply have done as usual — have acted on his own responsibility. An explanation is evidently wanted, and should bo insisted on when Parliament meets. This continued bolstering up of the New Plymouth Harbour Board is establishing a very bad precedent, and is flying m the face of the strongly expressed opinion of the House.