THE FINANCE OF ABOLITION.

Evening Star, Issue 4255, 16 October 1876, Page 4

THE FINANCE OF ABOLITION.

[BY AIT AcCOtTNTA>*T.]

If to arrive afc. /similar conclusions by different and independent processes -is any proof of i the correctness of the general j results arrived at, then I must t qlaim : that the position ,i»ken';up in my communication on Saturday last en the tt Finance of i Abolitiod'' W n Vers< ! *<*Ongly ■ established. That position was that the estimates : made of the Buppbs ; ed o los_s>-tb' ; the Province arising from the Abolition measures, and whioh hadbeenstatedat L150,0f)0tbL20O,0OO, were «ntirely_iallacions... I ' certainly. had no communication witttithe Government on the subject v and the conclusion arrived at was, therefore, from an entirely independent examination of the question with the materials before us, Through one or two misprints in that •onred for. instance, the word '' r surV ,r was^printed instead of ** gome ("/bs,i K o£ the possible loss ; •ad mstead)i^f> J M.OA«-thit , d." of education Hie Van&,tbat'Vwere inserted; How•Ter, the main resnlt was plain eribu|fi,aviz., that with the information at my command the outside loss to -the' Province was let dowaras C2p,l?op rper aqnurn. An alteration has since been made' in the proposals as to educationpthe,wholeco3tbeingcharged, •n Bthe instead of, two thirds,' Baking' a difference 'of 1^7,000; but several items q£ .whiCjh -X had v jtaken no account are to be .jO-thelr side. , P|irsjb ; of all the of? aubsidies to road boards and municipalities* was entirely left out of tty caleulatiQnfli.vpartly, because it was difficult to ascertain the .probable amount,. and partly because certain grants h*d been made to road'&oards, prior Ito Abolition, although chiefly "but of loan?;: and it might have, been •aid that the subsidies to.road boards under ♦he newjplan wpn/d Simply have been a continuation of previous allowances. In the statement now tfnad} !py ,the Treasury it is remarked that the L 14,283 granted last,year to road boards would not have been granted but for Abolition, atidrft is: not therefore to be treated as an ordinary allowance. If this viewJ-flre:'correct as''l have 1 no reason to dqubt that it is—then it is fair to give Abortion credit, for the full amount subsidies, to road boards as well assj| mhriicipalit'iesjviz., 1.35,044 in all, 'statement. Thiß itftin . ac^ojuntsj. ijor. nearly 'the ; whole difference between my statement and,that of the Government. I anxious to understate rather: than to overstate the case, and as I .think.,the question of the road, board grants is'» open to argument, I Would bo «|uite willing to give the other side (alt they can make of it. I had somewhat understated the interest on the WdP Provincial debt, viz., at L 70,000 ifeteadlbf- L 80,000,.& set down by the Govfpnjaebjj, and had also underon, tjie. other side some of the departmental-sayings. I think, however, there are,one ,pr two small items in the Treasury statement open to:question; thesj are as foltewS : A sum of L 7,806 is set down as Goldflelds 'departmental expenditure, •hargeabJe on the consolidated fund, while on the jbther'iside credit is taken for the full iGoldnelda' revenue. As by the Abolition $cl;! the departmental ex- • of ,the Goldnelds will be deducted,) from., the amount of feoldfields revenue handedo r to the Counties, this is not * orre ?>& r r it am under the impres-ion, also, that ior* she'ep.inspection, and L 4,631 for ha^Jjojr'emen|gs.' ! are;als,6'paid for in greit ,Tauesj", and do hoi become in reality fcviull shargev oh the consolidated fund,i'!But these are small points, and after adjusting^imy/calculations with the additibnal v . r information •■• supplied by She Government ■ retiirusy' 'the - whole controversy' itself• into thify namely, whether_the_Province loses MJ nothfng',' or gains Llß;9!Q4jj ,-sJhe loss, rof f L20,000 I spoke of as possible, iaipartly covered by the additional subsidies to municipalities and road boards over lljjrJsVof last year; and if it be corrgct to ignore the subsidy of l<st year n.14,g831as only exceptional, then the net difference 1 is practically one of L 4,000 to I^,o^' lf t.b; whifth, Extent I think the Go-, vernhieht'rtturriis probably in error. Brit/ as Mr Geoige M'Lean stated, the. caso is much stronger if we l look forward a year and consider how it ■ .arould be when the lines finished are opeiieii, and v the 'land' «ftind: becomes chargeable witb'^ix/'per-•cinfe': interest, as.it is. mnder the : to. Abolition. As to being it" is, '^of ( competent for •very-one tp '.form ;ian opinion \ for himself; But for my part'l should not give much for theejwstenee.'.of any r ,Minißtry which, after passing the present^Acts, came down next session to propose* in fa.e of the representatives of forty or more Counties, the taking awayooff f subsidies granted by Act. The one objectionable'feature'is the issuing of Treaas a tenijjbrary "measure • but it is in Iseypower s 'o£ f Canterbury and whose interest in this respect is common, to limit; thp evil effects of this plan next session after; a fewj months' experience of. its workjng.-•'.' .',• •■; ..,.

To sum up then t Our land fundia secured to us as it never wasibefore; and our utmost loss, leaving all consideration of the enhanced'OTilue of our landed estate out of the few-thousands and All'neat year. If the measures which grant these .'advantages do not suit Auckland and the landless Provinces, then, doubtless, 'Auckland ■will come out in her true colors'next session as the real enemy of our land fund, and then will be the time for Otago to'ory Nemo me impune Irtcemt, and t© find out who. are,her. real friends.