The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1883. Mr Wright’s Detractors.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1010, 1 August 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1883. Mr Wright’s Detractors.

A few days back we had to call our local contemporary to task for having made a gross misrepresentation of facts, and he ventured to exculpate himself by throwing the blame on that journalistic scapegoat, the intelligent compositor. If the excuse then put forward satisfied the readers of the Mail, we can only say that they must be the most simple and credulous people on the face of the earth. We were in hopes that the little lecture we then read to him on his misdeeds would have had some good effect, but we are afraid he is incorrigble. Our contemporary has |but one god, the member for Wakanui, whose praises he is never tired of singing, in season or out of season. This refutation of,the well-known proverb that no man is a hero to his valet de chamhrc is amusing, and probably hurts no one, unless it be the object of such fulsome adoration. But the belief in the greatness of Mr Ivess has its corollary, namely, an intense dislike of the member for Ashburton. Whether this dislike is the outcome of jealousy we do not venture to say, but it is a fact pregnant with meaning to those who read between the lines that when any important movement is made by the Canterbury representatives—as witness the election of a Committee to report on the best route for the West Coast railway —the member for Wakanui is invariably ignored. Be the reason what it may, the Mail watches with the eyes of an Argus for any expression of opinion derogatory of Mr Wright, and carefully reproduces it in his own columns. As we mentioned the other day, the prospect of our member being offered the new portfolio of Railways is contemplated with apprehension by the Wellington press, and the Post has particularly distinguished itself by vilipending Mr Wright whenever occasion offered. On Friday last the Wellington journal published a specially virulent leader, and such an opportunity for venting his spleen was not likely to be lost by our local contemporary; as a reference to his Tuesday’s issue will show that an extract was duly reprinted for the edification of the people in this part of the colony. Had the whole of the article in question been given there would not have been reason to complain, but the readers of the Mail are only furnished with a portion, the Editor concluding with the observation that “ the article concludes by exposing the fallacy of his figures” The words we have italicised contain the most astounding piece of impertinence we have met with for many a long day. In order to show how little truth there is in the assertion we may as well give the end of the Post's criticism. It runs as follows :

He (Mr Wright) challenges the Manager’s estimate that the reduction in grain rates made a difference of probably Lpo.ooo in the revenue, and proceeds by a most astounding arithmetical process to show its fallacy. He begins by assuming that as a reduction of 25 per cent, in grain charges had diminished the revenue by L 90,000, therefore at the old rates the grain traffic would have produced 4.360,000, and then he proceeds to deduct this hypothetical sum of L36o,ooo—being the actual grain receipts with the L 90,000 added—from the actual total revenue, without adding also to the latter the Lgo.ooo, by which he had increased one of the items. The actual total is 1403,420. He takes the grain item of L 270,000 and adds the hypothetical Lqo.OOO, making L 360,000, then deducts it from the original total of 1403,420, and triumphantly exhibits 143,420 as the balance derived from the other two-thirds of the goods traffic, asking indignantly whether this is a fair proportion. Perhaps if Mr Wright will take the trouble to jgo over his figures again he will see reason to substitute 1133,420 for the last figures. Just a little trifling error of about 66 per cent. Not bad for the would-be Minister of Railways. Wc fear his calculations and corrections, like his theories, require to be taken with a good many grains of salt.

Anybody who takes the trouble to compare the figures of the Post with those in Mr Wright’s notice of motion will see that the Wellington scribe has got into a muddle, a fact which is clearly enough pointed out in a letter addressed to that paper by the member for Ashburton, of which we give a copy :

Although we may differ as to our reading of certain figures, it is quite clear that upon one point we agree, that is, that the statement by the General Manager of Railways did imply that Canterbury profited to the extent of 190,020 at the cost of the rest of the colony—for which opinion see your own publication of the 16th inst. On the other hand wc have the explanation of the Minister of Public Works, that the General Manager was gniliy of a certain carelessness of expression and that the estimated loss of 190,000 was calculated upon the grain trade of the whole colony ; which is widely different from its being a special gain to Canterbury. When the Railway Department supplies the information of which I have given notice, I think I shall be able to convince you that the gain to Canterbury, instead of being 190,000, as you staled, is less than 130,000. Mr Wright is not the man to take up a position without being perfectly certain of the ground upon which he stands, and we may confidently rely that when the return asked for is made we shall find that the Railway Manager’s report is not by any means trustworthy. Mr Johnston, indeed, admitted that there was an ambiguity of expression in what was said of the revenue obtained from the Canterbury grain traffic, and until the true state of the case is placed before the House, it is absurd to talk about Mr Wright’s figures being fallacious. Assuming, however, as we have every right to do, that Mr Ivess’s views on this question are identical with those of the Mail , it

is easy to see that if he is consistent the member for Wakanui will be placed in a position that will be difficult for him to explain to his constituents. The object of the Wellington clique is to raise the Canterbury grain rate so that the revenue so obtained may go to recoup the losses sustained by railways in the North Island which will not for many years pay for their construction, and the member for Ashburton has fought hard and successfully in order to prevent such an injustice being done to this province. But if Mr Ivess really believes that Mr Wright’s figures have been proved by the Post to be wrong, how can he conscientiously do otherwise than support the Wellington clique ? The truth is that the question has nothing to do with party, but is one in which the two members should have worked in harmony to conserve the interests of the district. The spirit of partisanship, however, is too strong in Mr Ivess, and the fact that the motion was brought forward by the member tor Ashburton was quite sufficient to convince the,former representative that he ought to oppose it.