LOAN EMBARGO.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17783, 7 August 1929, Page 7

LOAN EMBARGO.

SIR J. WARD’S STATEMENT. A QUALIFIED WITHDRAWAL. MR. DOWNIE STEWART’S REPLY. (Times Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Finance Minister (Right Hon. J. G. Ward) in reference to his statement that he was debarred from going on the London market for two years, said:

“ The position is that when I came into office the first thing I found was the very important documents dealing with my predecessor’s negotiations with London and calling for urgent decision, regarding borrowing and conversions. These papers, I found, laid down London proposals to borrow' the following year’s requirements ’in the current year. The acceptance of this meant no borrowing on the London market during 1929-30, and I had immediately to take up the matter, as It had been left without decision of my predecessor. The Treasury was anxious for prompt action in a matter that had been waiting for over two months, and it will be realised that personally I had little time to go into the minute details of these very complicated transactions I mistakenly concluded that it meant a longer period of abstention from the London market than I now’ find to be the case. I took the reference in the, reports to me as applying to the two calendar years 1929 and 1930, whereas the actual period covered by my predecessor would not exceed 18 months, that is, from January, 1929, to the usual month in 1930, that is May.” Mr. Stewart’s Reply.

Hon. W. Downie Stewart, Finance Minister in the Coates Cabinet, in his speech on the Budget in the evening, again reverted to the matter. Referring to Sir J. G. Ward’s original statement he said: “It w r as an extraordinary statement, it was a contradictory statement, it was an unfair statement, it was a statement long overdue, for the Prime Minister has for weeks allowed a serious accusation made by himself to stand against me. He has refused me any redress. He has declined to lay the papers on the table. He has allowed his colleagues to attack me again and again. Not only so, but whenever the matter has cropped up he has repeated his charge in more and more aggravated language, and has stated that when he did disclose the position I would not have a leg to stand on. What has all the mystery and insinuation been about ? ” asked Mr. Stewart. “It all turned on the simple question whether he should accept the advice of his London agents and borrow three months sooner than usual in case the interest rales shomd go up. He decided to accept their advice, and the fact that this meant borrowing twice in one financial year is a mere accident.” Mr. Stew'art contended that the course he adopted was the only one open to him, as it left his successors free to act as they thought proper.

Mr. Stewart concluded: “When the election disclosed that we would be the out-going Government I considered that it would be unfair to tie my successor’s hands, as he had almost two months to make his decision. When he alleges that I was negotiating for a £5,000,000 loan I can only think he refers to this fact. The Treasury drew my attention to the fact that if the prospectus was to be issued on the London market in January it would be advisable to post on the material. In anticipation of Sir Joseph Ward’s decision I agreed to this, but told them that if Sir Joseph Ward did not' agree with the London" advice he would have ample time to cable instructing the High Commissioner not to proceed with the prospectus. It is possible that in forwarding these particulars the Treasury anticipated that our requirements would be £5,000,000 for the incoming year, as that was our normal borrowing, but that in no . way embarrassed or tied the hands of my successor, who could modify this to any extent he liked.”