The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1905. TWO PAPERS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12647, 7 November 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1905. TWO PAPERS.

We have before us as we write Icppiefcf two of the twenty-three sheets'(withi* out printer's imprint) of electioneering material for Government candidate* 7' which, by . fortunate accident (thft, papers were without address or direo. tion ,of any kind) got into the letterbox of a member of the Opposition. The first.-.-cf these papers professes to deal with tihe matter of " unexpended balances." This paper sets cut that The Opposition, when pressed for material for electioneering purposes, eagerly seize upon anything, however pervert, which they imagine will discredit the Government. Like may of their other charges, the "charge regarding " Unexpended Balances " has, when confronted with the actual facts and figures, recoiled upon the Opposition themselves, and proved to be one of the strongest evidences of the scanty consideration the colony (received from the Opposition when they were- in power. The figures in the Puiblic Works Estimates are the best possible test which absolutely jUm^^^^^^^^^^^^H^nioted are then

" faked '' statistics for the purpose of creating a favourable impression in the constituencies, per medium of trusted : agents. However, liha Opposition member into whose hands they fell happened also to be a gentleman exceptionally -well rersecl in the financial and. statistical history cf the colony, and he promptly set about exposing tlhe hunnbug of the whole production. Here is the resuit of his examination of the Government's statement of Opposition expenditure, the figures in their order reprerenting amount authorised, amount expended, balance unexpended, and percentage unexpended:— : 1888-9 1,153,383 613,939 539,443 £4617 (wrong) (wrong) (wrong) (wrong) 1889-90 916,537 410,730 505,307 £53 4 (wrong) ■*-"■ (wrong) (wrong) 1890-1 744,525 335,151 409,374 £5419 (wrong) (wrong) (wrong) This, surely, is a discreditable production. There are, it will be noticed, only two figures which are correct, and, curiously enough, ,they are the figures of the Public Works Appropriation, and not those of the Publio Works Estimates " as stated. The same thing applies to the table purporting' to give the expenditure during the present Government's administration for the same period. All the figures given for the two earlier yeara are incorrect, while those for 1904-1905 (which happen to be correct) are not the figures of the Public Works Estimates (as claimed), but the figured of the Public Works Appropriation. But the Opposition critic has not confined himself to pointing out the ercors of this precious piec© of "party" literature. He has also prepared a correct table, in which all the errors of the Government document are set right, and he has published the corrected figures for the use of all candidates and for the information of the public. We need not go further into details. It is * sufficient to point out that the corrected figures show the following result:—Atkinson.—Total unexpended-'^ for three years £675>241 Seddon. —Total unexpended for tnree years £1,329,861 At the of the Government sheet appears the following:—" Surely these *■ figures speak for themselves, and need"s^ no other explanation ?" And we are pre--' pared to leave it .at that, merely substituting a note of exclamation for'the note of interrogation with which the Government compiler was careful 'to conclude his erroneous statement. The second sheet, emanating from the same source, is a return purporting to show the estimated loss of revenue from reductions in the Customs tariff effected by the Government.' To this return Mr Allen has attached, and published, the following pithy and pertinent comments :— I Machinery, agricultural.—A reduction I is claimed in amount of duties by Government. Pacts.—ln 1895 Hansard, p. 506, vol. 90. It was moved " That machinery be on the free list."There voted for—Allen, Buchanan, Fraser, Lang, T. MacKenzie, Massey, W. R. Russell, etc. " i There voted against—Seddon and Co. I 77 517:-^-Seddonf Ward and Co> put I all. machinery ;■ for agricultural purposes, I etc., "at 5 per cent, duty.- • '.. *^ - ■ In 1900 this was taken 'off again. ■ On p 398, Hansard, vol. 113, MAssey I moved* that " All' agricultural -. imple- I ments" be put on the free list:—Caraed." I Matches.—Hansard, vol. 90,. p.* 488, ■ wax matches. In 1895, T. Mackenzie I moved to" reduce the duty to ls^ -_ ■ Seddon and Co. voted against this, ■ and the reduction was not carried. I Kerosene.—Vol. 90, p..485.,-* In 1895J Earnshaw moved to reduce duty'to 3d.^H Lost because Seddon, Ward and Co. v voted against it. ... I Rice.—ln 1895, vol. 90, p. 431, Maslin ■ moved to attd to the free list "rice." ■ Ayes—tAlfen>. Buchanan, T. Mac Ke- ■ zie, Afassey, \W R^Russell, etc. ■ Noee:^-Sedidon and Co.—Motion lost. ■ Subsequently, in 1900, rice was put ■ on the free list.. - ■ -Salt.-^ln 1895, Vol. 90, p. 491, T. ■ MaoEen%ie. moved that salt be put on ■ free list^-Lost. » ■ Subsequently, in 1000, salt was put ■ on the-free list. ,~ H Tea.—ln 1895, Hansard, vol. p. 438, ■ to.retaia,sd. tea duty. ■ Seddon and Co.^onoved to retain, but ■ the 5d was cut out and 4d inserted. ■ Wire Fencing,—Vol. 90, p. 501, in ■ 1895 Masseymoved to add fencing wire, ■ plaint and barbed, to.the free list. ■ Ayes—Allen, Buchanan, Duthie, W. ■ ■ Fraser, Lang, W. R. Russell, MassejyM Noes—Cadman, Lawry, McGowan, R. fl McKehzie, Millar, Mills, Seddon, Ward, ■ i These facts do not reveal any burning H j desii*e on the part of Messrs Seddon and I Co. to reduce the taxation on tihe neoes-H paries of life. Now, on the eve of aH general election, (Mr Seddon blandly H jtsks the public to return him to power H ia the hope t>hat he will, at his pleasure, g'.ve them a " free breakfast table." ,^M