The Evening Star SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2999, 28 September 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1872.

The country has now two balancesheets before it by rival Treasurers, one of which seems to differ from the other by some forty thousand pounds, and, as a matter of course, the friends of the present Government will be jubilant, and exclaim in their triumph that it was high time the late Government was ousted from office, since they had tried to deceive the country. For our own parts, without pretending to any extraordinary sagacity in the matter of public accounts, we must say we think the jugglery will be found to be on the other side. Telegraphic summaries are necessarily curt and incomplete. The wonder is that, as a rule, it is contrived in so few words to give the gist of long speeches, occupy ing not uufrequently one or two hours in delivery. Accepting, therefore, the telegraphic account of Mr Gillies’s statement as in the main correct, the fact is plain, unless there is an error in dates, which may be the case, that Mr Gillies, having a purpose to serve, took his data from different points of time, sometimes referring to the state of affairs in January, sometimes in June, sometimes in September. But apart from that, which is in itself a proceeding open to suspicion, the maimer in which lie contrives to shew that Air Vogel mis-stated the financial position of the Colony is very adroit. Instead of a surplus of £ 10,000, Ito says there is deficiency of £33,000. This is in itself sufficiently startling. Treasurers do not usually make up the public accounts themselves. They arc necessarily dependent upon the accountants of the various departments for the balances in hand or of debts owing, and the country would have great reason to fear there was something radically wrong in the accounts of the Colony, were it found that the true amount of debts and assets could not bo arrived at by different Treasurers. We see no reason to apprehend that this is the case, and, in fact, Mr Gillies’s statement in the main corroborates Mr

Yogel’s, the differences between them being almost wholly resolvable into what are to be considered assets and Avhat arc not. To start with : —One amount for which Mr Vogel took credit is a sum duo by the Provinces to the General Governjncnt for interest on the Consolidated Fund and other charges. This ho estimated at, in round numbers, .£.‘51,300. It suits Mr Gillies to hdiece Unit this is not correct, probably on account ol some disputed item or two, and to believe that the true amount was only about £20,000. The next discrepancy is a sum of £l;5,0.)0, which Mr Vogel estimated as the value to the country of certain confiscated lands. Mr Gillies gives a whimsical reason for not including this in his list of assets. He docs not deny its value ; he does not say that if sold it would fetch that sum. For what he knows it might realise twice that amount. It is, in fact, one of the crumbs that have fallen to our lot in return for the loss of some thousands of lives, three millions of borrowed money, and a large appropriation of revenue. We have heard, ad nauseam, ridicule cast by the supporters of the present Administration on the “ sugar and blanket” policy, falsely attributed to Mr M‘Lean. It would have been a pusillanimous mode of purchasing peace, had it been adopted with that view; but it would still be harmless compared with the prospect, infataro, of buying the votes and support of the natives by restoring that land which was taken from them as the penalty of their insubordination. Yet it is on this very ground that the £13,650 is not treated as an asset.

He could not treat as an asset any part of the 1.13,650 for which his predecessor took credit as recoverable from the Confiscated Land Account. The Government meant to grant a considerable portion of those Louis to the Natives from whom they were taken, and the balance would not do more —if, indeed, it would do so—than meet the claims, and pay costs of management.

It would appear that with an amount described by Mr Gillies as a liability of L 17,000 in respect of savings in the Civil List and some 1.5,000 which have been paid since the late Treasurer made up his balance-sheet, the claims for which may or may not have been sent in prior to the accounts having been made up, the discrepancy between the accounts is made up. To sum up, Mr Gillies differs from Mr Vogel one doubtful debt, one positive asset, one matter of account, and some claims probably not made on the 30th June. The items are a contingency, a matter of opinion, a saving (and, therefore, a auumna nauilityy, and a fact—the latter revealing itself after the balance. So far as the matter of opinion goes, we hold the late Treasurer justified in treating the confiscated land as an asset. It would just be as easy to say, “ We gave confiscated land back to the Natives valued at ten or thirteen thousand pounds as a bribe for their good behaviour,” as to say, “ We do not consider that an asset, for we intend to give it away.” Take away the inducement to justify turning out a Ministry, and Mr Gillies’s Financial Statement, so far as the assets and liabilities of the country are concerned, is equal to an endorsement on Mr Vogel’s of “correct.” It must be remembered that there is a necessity to justify the action of the Stafford party, and it mast be admitted that a plausible attempt has been made—we think, without success.