Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 80a

[introduction]

TTth Hon. John MacKenzie, in his Naseby speech, claimed that his good Government had spent £814,252, «which was mostly taken from revenue,» for roads and bridges. We do not question the amount nor where the money went; but we do question where it came from. The bulk of it came from loan, and a considerable slice of it from people on, what in ordinary life be considered, false pretences. The term may seem harsh, but we have the warrant of no less an authority than Mr. Wm. Hogg late M. H. R. and now candidate for Masterton, for the expression. He. bold man that he was, in May last went even further, and said with respect to some lands which had been allotted and subsequently thrown up that «He considered this was bad and rascally administration, and he had no hesitation in telling the men their pockets had been picked.» A few weeks after this remarkably outspoken outburst the House met, and the member and the much censured minister were on as loving terms as ever.

We have before us a file of papers dealing with the Stirling Block, which had five shilling per acre added to its price for the expressed purpose of making roads. As is usual in such cases, there was no delay on the part of Government as landlord in collecting the interest on the purchase money as well as the five shillings for the roads. The delay was, also as usual, in getting the roads first and any information as to the why and wherefore of their not being made in the second. On July 13th, 1896, a settler's son, acting as secretary for the settlers on the block, wrote to the Surveyor-General asking for an account of the amount allocated and spent, and on the 25th received a reply that the information «would be prepared as soon as possible.» A fortnight later the department discovered that the applicant was not himself a settler, and asked for his authority. He replied giving the names of four resident settlers, and mentioning that there was general dissatisfaction at the way the money had been spent and the work done by co-operative labor.

Then on August 21st the circumlocution office came into play, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands wrote «I cannot give you a detailed account, of the expenditure on the roads on this block partially constructed out of the money raised on this block without instructions from the head office under whose directions the funds have been expended. In any case I do not think you are entitled to the information asked for, unless you are duly appointed in writing by a majority of the settlers in the Stirling Block to represent them in this matter.—John H. Baker.»

An official snub like this ought to have crumpled the young man up. But he appears to have had scant reverence for officialdom and red tape, and replied with an authority from all the settlers, who put the following very plain question in the document.

«¶Has the money impounded by the Government, namely five shillings per acre on 4770 acres, been fully expended on the Stirling Block only?»

No result followed, and the settlers fell back on their member, the Friend-of-the people, Hogg. He replied on September 29th, «I have not kept a copy of my letters to the Survey Department asking to be supplied with an account of the expenditure on the Stirling roads, but 1 may inform yon that I have written either to the Minister or the Under-Secretary repeatedly during the last year, and have interviewed Mr. Barron on the subject without result. Yours very truly, A. W. Hogg.»

This remarkable letter is worthy the consideration of all settlers who look to their representative for aid when a «rascally administration», fails to keep to its bargains or give any reason why it does not. Mr. A. W. Hogg Says he wrote «repeatedly,» but forgets who to and that he tried his influence with Mr. Barron «without result.» Truly a lame and impotent conclusion for so extremely intimate a friend of the all-powerful Premier. The Masterton settlers may swallow this, but we confess that we have our doubts about either the letters or the interviews.

The amount which the settlers were «loaded» for the roads was £1193, and they resolved to employ a competent surveyor to value the work. He reported as follows: «The actual length of dray road formed is 158 chains and 76 chains of ditch cut and roughly thrown up. This represents the whole of the expenditure by the Government on the block. The value of the formation is £474. and of the ditching £133, total. £607. These, prices include the bush-felling."

Next comes a letter signed by John McKeuzie, Minister of Lauds, dated October 23rd, to Mr. A. W. Hogg: Sir, referring to your, note of 10th inst., in reference to the expenditure on the Stirling small farm block, near Eketahuna, I have to State that the expenditure on the various roads is £1193.»

And on referring to the official report of the lands Department we find the following—Stirling Block: Payment to co-operative contractors. £660 16s.; cost of inspection. £100 11s.; total. £761 7s.; and the average wages earned 4s. 11d. per day, while the surveyor estimated the value of the work on a basis of good navvies making 10s, per day.

The above requires no comment. The Minister says £1193 has been expended, the return of his own department shows that £761 7s only has been spent, the value of the work is £607; the settlers have to pay on the full amount and put Up with half-finished roads, and the member of the district has the colossal cheek to ask them to show their confidence in him and the Government he worships by again sending him to Parliament. We hardly think they will.

vignette