The Public Trust Office.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18231, 15 November 1924, Page 12

The Public Trust Office.

Wo print to-day a statement issued by tho Primo Minister in reply to the criticisms of tho Public Trust Office which have appeared in "The Press." Mr Massey's statement, it is hardly necessary to say,.was prepared by tho Public Trust Office itself, and is fathered by the Primo Minister merely because lie is the Minister officially and nominally responsible. Tho first thing to bo 6aid about the Trustee's defence is that it carefully avoids tho main charge brought against the-Office by ourselves and the serious indictment contained in the articles by our correspondent "Jurist," and deals only with certain parts of tho articlos contributed by tho Bev. Father Dowling. The first part of the defenco consists merely of a general puffing of the Office and the Common Fund, and has little, if any, relevance to the case' brought against the policy of the Office. Then follow several paragraphs, in which, in general terms, and with a remarkable avoidance pf exact figures just where exact figures are necessary, it is claimed that Father Dowling has misunderstood the intricate finance of the matter. No account is taken, it is urged, of the revenue derived from ■the investment of accumulated reserves; Nor, it iB contended, has account been taken of "the profits made by the Trustee on the amounts ontrusted to him as an investment agent. What the Trustee wishes to convey is that if the amounts so earned are deducted from the "surplus interest" retained by the Office it will be found that the Office docs not really withhold from tho beneficiaries. a percentage of their incomes nearly so large as has been alleged. No figures, however, are given as to the amount of interest earned by the Office's reserves, or the profits on investments. That theso figures have not been given is a suggestive fact, and what it suggests is that the amounts named are not large. enough to bring down the actual toll levied by the Office on estates and trust funds to a figure that is less than unreasonable. The Trustee cannot expect Ms" special pleading, and his mixture of general assertion and excuses, to take the place of a detailed reply to criticism. He should state (1) the amount of funds in Ms hands on the account of beneficiaries, (2) the actual interest earned by them, (3) the actual amount credited to them, (4) the amount of revenue derived from every other source. He should also make clear, what is not stated in his reports or in his defence, is earned by the public moneys entrusted to him, and bow much of this is withheld from the Treasury to swell the Office's profits. Possibly Father Dowling may reply, in such detail as may appear neeessary,' to the statement furnished by the Trustee to the, Prime Minister. In the meantime we may point out that the fact that the Office is able to obtain a large number of customers and to make huge profits through the powers and privileges obtained from Parliament is not more a measure of the public's appreciation of the loudly proclaimed and dearly sold "State "security" than of the public's failure to understand how widely this bureaucratic institution has departed from its original purpose. It makes huge profits, even though it renders free or at uneconomically low rates services for which it ought to make charges, and even though it is run on an enormously more expensive scale than wellconducted trust companies are. It cannot make these profits out of air. It must, and it does, make them out of the beneficiaries and the public moneys entrusted to it, and it is no use its pretending it does not.