NEWSPAPER CRITICISM.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 563, 7 April 1876, Page 2

NEWSPAPER CRITICISM.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —You have had occasion to call the Lyttelton Times to order for turning the political acts of the Premier of New Zealand into burlesque, and using on many occasions language that was by no means calculated to advance their cause, while doing so I may at the same time point out to both your contemporaries that there is an ample field few? the Press to discuss the present political! situation, and the more immediate future of New Zealand to the great advantage of this country. I refer of course to the Loan and i Banking arrangements of Sir Julius, and to - the Laud Compact of 1856, as treated by/ him. Now it is quite a matter of history / that the Treasurer raised four millions of money, and in doing so caused a depreciation in our stock of about six per cent. Naturally it occurs to anyone to ask : Has he then used the four millions raised in such a hurry, and at so great a sacrifice ? It must be well known to the whole country that he has had one and a half millions of that loan lying now for a year in the Bank of New Zealand, at 1£ per cent interest, besides the £600,000 of savings, and very heavy provincial and other deposits, and he now has given the requisite six months’ notice to the Bank, merely for the purpose of lending the money out again on tender. Now, if the Lyttelton Times had not been so busy with second-hand clown’s Jokes and rhymes borrowed from a travelling circus, it might have informed the public of this, and have shown the actual loss to Now Zealand by this error on the part of the Treasurer, thus:—The Rothschild’s took the whole loan at 91, and then passed it out to the public at a profit, as investors came forward to take up stock, they made a profit of about of six per cent, the stock being now up to 97, and if they had to get advances on the bonds they would only have had to pay 4 per cent for a whole year’s accommodation, which of course was not needed ; thus giving a fair three per cent to Rothschild, and about three per cent interest on advances—a clear loss to New Zealand’of £240,000 on the loan. On the other hand, Bank of New Zealand must have made ten per cent gross profit on the £2,500,000 (that includes the savings and deposits), or another £250,000 upon moneys left with them, and that without giving any security to the Exchequer for the enormous advancesmade to the Bank, Thus the Treasurer has lost by his hasty ways about £400,000 to New Zealand ; nor is this the only question. We may well ask —Is it to be always so ? Are these heavy loans to be given out again without any security? The question of a National Bank furnishing due security is one that I commend to the notice of the Times and other papers. Then, the Land Compact of 1856, by which the land fund was to be preserved to the localities in which it arose j Xam surprised to see (he two

serious errors into which the Press falls, in its article of the 30th of March, viz , “ that Sir Julius respects the compact,” and •' that he insists on giving the land fund to the place where it is raised." The words of the Treasurer are clear —‘ I go outside that compact altogether, I say it is desirable for every great division of the country to have an interest in the land revenue and the compact is not undesirable if we were free to recognise it.” It is true that the Treasurer promises to localise the residue of the land fund, but following his first principle stated above he will first take £1 for £1 out of it to the subsidies, and thus the residue may come to mean “ nothing at all.” All the intelligence that can be brought to bear upon this point is desirable, because I see Auckland inclined to become paupers feeding upon any stray cash they can get, while at their very doors 80,000 acres in one block—viz, the Piako land is to slip away for 2s 6d per acre. I know witnesses can be found even in Christchurch who have walked over the land in question, and they state that the splendid flax growing upon it is quite evidence of its being worth say £5 per acre. On this account then, and on account of the 256,000 acres of Murimotu it is desirable that we, who make the most of our landed estate, should not be called upon to pay it away to those in the North,, who would ruin themselves and the whole South Island, and so destroy New Zealand financially. Nothing save free selections at a sufficient price can cure these evils, and secure the preservation of the compact. I trust the Press will correct the false impression that its leader of the 30th March has given to the New Zealand public, by giving the real words of the Treasurer. As the Treasurer himself stated at Wanganui, “ Elective bodies get criticised, and that stirs them up;” and a proper criticism is the moat wholesome preservative of British freedom, while low blackguardism, as at Melbourne, or a jumble of theatrical and scriptural twaddle, as in the Lyttelton Times , serve only to degrade the cause they espouse, and in no sense to better their opponents. Plain common sense and a fair field for all Her Majesty’s subjects are the essentials requisite for political health. Yours, &c, S, G. O.