A REPLY TO SIR JOSEPH WARD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11512, 19 February 1903, Page 5

A REPLY TO SIR JOSEPH WARD.

(SPECIAL TO "THE I'HESS.")

WELLINGTON, February 18. This afternoon I had a further interview with Mr Fruser, m.ju,.xv. for Wak&tipu, in regard to the finances of the colony, more especially in regard tt> the interview with Sir J. Q. Ward. Mr eraser, in a brief but lucid statement, pointed out where Sir Joseph Ward had fallen into error. - But before proceeding to give Mr Eraser's statement, 1 might remark that hie original criticism was not Iα any -way meant to be a hostile one, but simpler an accurate summing up of the position disclosed by the figures published in the Government "Gazette." 1 might add also that Mr Fraser did not contend that "all ,, the borrowed money was not wisely spent. No one does that, though he, in company with several members of the Government party, agrees that a considerable portion of the Joan money nae not been epent to the beet advantage. But let Mr Eraser speak for himself. '

"Sir Joseph Ward/ he said, "has challenged the accuracy of the figures I supplied. He says: t-he Consolidated Fund, I do not knowhow Mr Fraser arrived at the conclusion indicated in his interview with your Wellington correspondent, but from the official figures I am unable to arrive at a similar result to tnat indicated in the statements referred to.' "This is not all surprising," commented Mr Fraser, "seeing -tuat .-c thinking portion of the ONew Zealand public has long ceased to expect accuracy as to figures in Ministerial statements." .

"My figures,!" adkfed Mr Fraser, /"are correct, and are taken from the New Zealand "Gazette" of July 24th and Ootober 30th, 1902, and January ; 29t3», 1903, Sir ! Joseph Ward's figures relating to receipt* and ■expenditure are incorrect, although apparently taken from the came, sources. I stated that the revenue for the nine months ending December 31st, 1902, had increased by £152,279 over the receipts for the corresponding period of 1901, and that the expenditure bad increased during the same period £157,301. Sir Joseph Ward puts tdie increase of revenue ait £157,405, and the increase of expenditure at £147,300. "The discrepancy from my figures in regard to the'increase of revenue is owing to on era or on Sir Joseph Ward's part in compilation, while that in regard to the increase of expenditure is owing to an error in computation. Sir Joseph has omitted from the receipte for the mine months ending December, 1901, the cum of £62,723, and from the receipte for the same period in 1902, the sum of £57,597. Th.c (haa had the effect of unduly augmenting the increase of receipts by £5126. Deducting this amount from £167,405, Sir Joseph's figures for fche increase, you ajrive at my figure—viz.,

"The above sums of £62,723 and £57,597 omitted by Sir Joseph represent the proceeds of debentures issued for tlhe increase of the sinking fund, also recoveries for respective yean. Can anyone doubt that those items are important factors in the receipt*, and should not have been omitted?

"Sir Joseph, put the increase of expenditure at £147,300. My figure is £157,300. Tiie difference of £10,000 ie accounted for by the fact that Six Joseph had , made a mistake to chat extent in adding up the several amount* taken from th© respective quarterly returns from June to December, 1902. it is a somewhat singular fact tirat this mistake of £10,000 is repeated when Sir Joseph proceeds to divide the increase of expenditure under the heads of permanent and The increase of expenditure under annual appropriation is really £55,653, not £25,653.

"When Sir Joseph realises the error in addition which he has made, I fear his satisfaction over the assumed fact that 'the increase in reve:i;;s was £10,000 greater than the increase of expenditure will be short-lived: Aβ a matter of fact, the reverse is the case. The increase of expenditure exceeds the increase of revenue by £5022. "Sir Joseph aaya. 'as a matter of lair criticism, Mr Fraser should have pointed out that the revenue had gone on increasing during the same period.' My reply to that k I did point Urn out. ■ "It is not my intention to refer to the various side issues Sir Joseph has rained in hie lengthy statement, but I fed bound to reply to his criticism of my remark j that the borrowed money was not wisely I spent. Sir Joseph pretends to assume that I referred to the sum borrowed for toe Advances to Settlers and Lands for Settlement Departments. He Knows fuU well that such is not the case. I was referring to the waste notoriously taking place, firstly under the co-operative system, and secondly to the system under which Parliament act* as a board of works for local neede, instead of mich. function being relegated to the, local bodies para-' graph. I estimated the surplus in the consolidated fund at about £320,000. Sir Joseph Ward says it. will be' much above that sum. The Premier stated in Auckland yesterday that it , would "be at least £250,000.: The 3Lst Mm-k -will disclose ■the: correct tanoiikltff^^.^:^^.^::::^:^^^'^