WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 31 October 1929, Page 5

WELLINGTON TOPICS

THE LOAN MYSTERY.’ MISUNDERSTANDING REMOVED. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 29. The “ Evening. Post,” in quite its best judicial style, accepts Sir Joseph Ward’s explanation of the “ loan mystery ” and regards 'the unfortunate incident as closed. . “The statement now made,”, it says, “ removes, any possible source of misunderstanding. We are glad this has been, done, for the Minister, of Finance and the ex-Minister are both men of high repute, with a reputation, moreover, for fairness and responsibility in their criticism of each other’s policy. Neither would wittingly leave a legacy of trouble for the other, and both recognise fully that the Dominion’s credit should not be damaged for party purposes.” Sir Joseph Ward in his statement .published on Saturday did not explain very clearly how he had been led into the mistake he made, and it has been suggested that his reticence in this respect was due to. his disinclination to. involve anyone else in lps blunder. It seems almost incredible that no responsible officer at the Treasury realized that* the had misread documents placed before him. ,' v PARTY ARDOUR. Turning to the prolonged debate upon the Taxation Bill: the “ Post” deprecates the warmth displayed by some of the critics of the measure, “New Zealand credit in London,” it says, “ was good when, the Reform Party bft office, and it is good still; but it would not ’be good long if London financiers were to read and accept as accurate some of the statements made in the course of the taxation stonewall. In their desire to out-Herod Herod in condemnation of the supertax, some of the critics conveyed the impression that- insolvency for many producers would follow- tlie. imposition of the new • taxation. . . Altogether a credulous listener or reader might have obtained a pretty picture of bad faith, impending red ruin and blagk disaster.” : The . spectacle fcertainly was not an edifying one. Perhaps on previous occasions the fore-runners of the'United Party may have made, similar displays, but Parliament at this time of day, with i its largely increased responsibilities, should not be reviving the discreditable j. practices of the past. / ' ' , i THE DEPUTY LEADER.

i The Hon. G. W. Forbes, the Minister of Lands and Agriculture, who, has occupied the position of leader of the House during the absence of Sir Joseph Ward from the chamber has acquitted himself very creditably under) his un-' sought burden. .Finance' .isj, riot his strong suit in politics, the greater_psirt of his active life having been spent in agricultural pursuits ; but he ' piloted the much discussed Taxation' Bill through all its stages with tact and understanding. The la sic was no mean one, with the, financier of ~ the party temporarily laid aside and with a persistent Opposition bent. upon wrecking the Bill, which ultimately was passed on to the Legislative Council without any material alteration. The Incjenendents, Mr W. J. Pobon, the member for Stratford, Mr 11. Mf Rushworth, the member for Bay of Islands, and Mr €.' A, Wilkinson, the member for Egmont, voted with the Opposition, but this does not mean that they have renounceu their association with the United Party. Labour, of course, sided with the Government and so made its position secure. * RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION. The hearts of the opponents of,l he coi. pletion of the South Island Trunk Railway are gladdened by the nrospept of only a comparatively small sum beinn spent upon this work during the current financial year, “It is notable,” says the “Dominion ” in reviewing the position, “that a vote cf only. £45,000 is provided in the Public Works Estimates for this year’s construction on the South Island Main Trunk railway. It is to be hoped that this is an indication of a change of attitude by the Government towards this project. At any rate twelve months is allowed foi fuither consideration before heavy expenditure can begin.” It is to be hoped that the opponents of the line will obtain much comfort from the announcement. The truth of the matter is, however, that the " Government has limited the expenditure upon the line this year to £45,000 simply because no more can be economically employed during tbe current financial year, which ends on March 31 next. No doubt next yejxr a larger sum will be available.