The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1905.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11728, 1 December 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1905.

DISHONEST CRITICISM.

Our morning contemporary is again upon Hi© warpath in the interests of th© Conservatives; and its weapon, as usual, is not support of Opposition chimeras, or rhapsody over thoir illusionary policy, but exaggerated libel upon the merits of Liberal laws, and unjustifiable misconstruction ~~of the Government's original intention with respect to the Public Revenues Bill. This Bill the Chronicle yesterday morning made the subject of a column of viscious, invictivo and scurrilous abuse, as is usual with the tactics' of Conservative journalism. It declines to deal with subjects fresh in the fields of politics and comprehensive in the general public mind, but exhumes a measure passed in 1900, feeling confident that the veil of obscurity which for five* years has bean drawn over the Act, will render its outline faint enough to safely offer to the public embellished with deceptive phrases and re-garbed in the raiment of its own false logic and accusative doctrines. The Chronicle seeks to prove that the "Public Revenues Bill," passed in October of 1900, is a corrupt measure, and heads its article with a pagarism of Australian political parlance. Nothing is so misleading as hazy assertions, but fortunately we are in a position to draw aside the curtain of ambiguity that enshrouds the utterances of our contemporary, and to place the intention of the f ramers of^the Bill before the public with more concision and with true interpretation. In its fiction column the Chronicle endeavours to delude the public with the belief that the main object of the passage of the Bill was the increas3 in members' honorarium — an accusation which any clean-minded person who reads the debate upon the Bill will reject with contempt as a nauseous offering to wholesome intelligence. And again it would endeavour to prove that this measure tended to bring-the power of body beneath the dictation of individual — another assertion the absurdity of which is only equalled by its fallaciousness. The true purpose of the Bill was, and still remains, ,to meet the difficulties arising where necessitous appropriations placed upon the "Estimates — and passed by the House, were negatived by some legal

clause in th© many imrepeakd obsolete Acts then in force. Many cases occurred where the Controller and Auditor-General, recognising the demand for moneys- voted, would have waived objection had he notbeen shackled by the r«striction of useless but legal point 3 with which many antiquakd Acts bristled. On the one hand, there was the necessity of amending scores of unworkable and hampering measures or of creating a new measure to meet the exigencies- constanty arising. This atter is what th© Public Revenues Bill rendered possible. Contrary to our contemporary's contention, th© Bill was not passed against the prejudices of the House or without t«£er«nce3 to official sources, as instance the report of the Public Accounts Coinmittc© before which the- measure had to be laid. The report of the- Committee said: — "Tlie Committee are of the opinion that tho course taken was in the best interests of the colony, -and recommend that the' action of the Controller and Auditor-General waiving his objection an.l allowing,- notwithstanding the difficulties in the. way under section 5 of the Consolidated Stock Act, 1877, th© short-dated debentures mentioned in tho paper under consideration to be ratified; and that tho law he amended to meet the case, so as to provide for futur© contingencies of a lik© character.*' Concerning the Chronicle's concluding sentences, in which it endeavours to narrow an appropriation, which must first • J>e voted by the House and referred to tho Controller and Auditor-General, and endeavour to bring it within the limits of the Premier's jurisdiction, w© ony need quot© from this journal's own -publication of th© Act: — " Section 9 provides that if in th© opinion of the Audit Office the question involves matter of law, then it shall be determined by th© Governor having b© fore Mm the opinion of the Attorney-Gene-ral thereon; and in such, case th© objection of the Audit Office, the opinion of the Atfcornoy-General, and the determination of ihe Governor shall be laid before Parliament as provided by section fifty-three of thcPrincip.il Act." The fact is the Bill was suggested by the Department, and recommended by '-be Public Accounts Committee. Further tho clause to which so much exception has been taken by Mr Massey and his followers merely expanded th© scope of a similar clause in- the 1891 Act, which is a transcript of Sir.- George Grey's Act of 1878. It would be well for th© Chronicle to make itself more conversant with tha details and history of .our legislation before- making such baseless charges against Mr S&ddon.