THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 1912. THE DOMINION'S FINANCE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10648, 1 June 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATUDAY, R JUNE 1, 1912. THE DOMINION'S FINANCE.

Two very remarkable .statements were made by ileading "Liberal" politicians off New Zealand 'on Thursday eve'ning concerning the finances, of the Dominion. T'hey were remarkable by reason of their being so utterly irreconcilable. ! (Sir Joseph Ward, speaking at a reception tendered him in 'Wellington, asserted that on the eve of the general election he .was arranging for a four | million loan, (but when he 'found that iDheire was a probability of Mr Massey ' coming to power, 'lie had abandoned the negotiations, with ,the result tthat latAtbse present .time there was a stringency in.the imoney otiarket,- and trade rn<as suffering correspondingly. H'ow any (politician who hojles tio. again take a. prominent part in'the affairs af the country could make such a damaging admission* is inexplicable. 111 16 osfen•sSblo reason igiwn .by iSir Joseplh for ■liiis .action wals that lie did not (wish to : interfere with the financial arrangements of his successor. Most people miho take an unbiassed view of .things will arrive at the conclusion that the object) of the ex-Prime Minister was to deliberately embarrass lira successore. 'lt is surely an drony of ifate that the 'embarrassment 1 , if any, .should fall up'on his own colleagues and admirers. •But What- has the present Prime 'Minister, the 'Hon. T. vMa>okenaie, .to savin the matter? While admitting at Oipunake that there was a financial stringency, Mr Mackenzie said 'it .was; generally recognised ithat this was "dine (to causes wholly unconnected with the Dominion.'' If the caiuse of the stringency is, as Sir ' Joseph 'Wa.rd alleges, due ito the failure to raiise a loan, how. can it be whoJly unopirfiecteid with, the, ? And" if sir Joseph, who lids a.t times been a "wizard of finance,-' regarded' ajfour miiMicjn loan as ne<?essatfy six months ago/i&ow comes 1 it ,th!\t Mr 'Mackenzie slHbuld eay tfoa|. "ili was not considered advisable Ho raise a. loan for the money, authorised

until it vv:.s needed?" If tho money was needed by Sir Joseph Ward, should it not also have .been needed by ■Mr Mack-en zip;-' There' is something about the business which requires explanation. The statements uf the two "Liberals" do not dovetail. It'is obvious that iboth .cannot be right. If Sir Joseph "W'iiircl really opened 'negotiations :fo,r a'four million loan, people will require to know under '.what pretext ie did so. They wail also form their own .conclusions .as to the object of his breaking oIF those negotiations. .But if Mr IMacfien&ie, as a member of tho iWard 'Cabinet, considered a four million- loaa necessary in Deceniber, wliy diould he not consider it nccesisa/ry when he became Prime Minister himsdlf P If Sir Jo'-ciph iWard is right an assuming that the present .string-

ency in the ..money market is due to 'She Ifaikire to raise a loan, does he •not -cast -a serious indictment against ■his successor:' We leave Sir Joseph '■Ward, and Mr Mackenzie to fight it out (between ithemselvas. One of them 'has made a serious .blunder—which one is notifor us to say at "this juncture.