76a["State Steamers", The West Australian, Wednesday 23 April 1913, page 7]

STATE STEAMERS.

CRITICISM OF THE SERVICE.

MR. DREW IN REPLY.

Referring yesterday to "Observer's" article on the State Steamship Service, the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Drew) stated to a representative of the "West Australian":--

"I read the article with a great deal of interest, mingled with some amusement and a little disgust. It is quite true I refused to furnish the writer with information bearing upon the financial position and business operations of the State Steamship Service. I have a deep respect for the Press, but I have yet to learn that any private firm, or even a public company, would consent to the exposure of the inner workings of its business through the columns of a newspaper. The State Steamship Service is a trading concern in vigorous competition with other enterprises of a similar class; and, to my mind, it would be suicidal to adopt any course which would enable our opponents to keep themselves posted in our every movement. At any rate, I do not propose to do so while I am in charge of the department. Of course, I could have supplied information to 'Observer' which would not come under this category, but it would practically have meant sub-editing his 'copy.' Moreover, from my point of view, it appeared much nicer to allow 'Observer' to have his full say in his own way; so that, after some of his specific statements had been subjected to the searchlight. the public would be able to form an estimate of the value of his criticisms as a whole.

"'Observer' takes, as the basis of the profit and loss account of the State steamship service, the amount drawn out of the Treasury and the amount paid back. He thus reveals his gross ignorance of the elementary principles of accountancy. You might just as well judge a business firm's financial position by the difference between its deposits and withdrawals from a bank in a given space of time. Any person possessing the slightest acquaintance with bookkeeping will know that 'Observer's' method of arriving at a balance is unworthy of a schoolboy. In connection with the State steamship service – as in connection with a public company – the assets have to be taken into consideration; and these, so far as we are concerned, include large quantities of stores, coal, moneys due by other departments for services rendered, and other items which materially alter the Treasury aspect of the case.

"He says there are accounts which have been incurred since August which have not been paid. This is distinctly untrue, unless by the words 'since August' he means of recent date. 'Since August' might mean last week, or even yesterday. As a matter of fact, with one exception, no account has been unduly held over. The exception I refer to is an account for £100, the vouchers for which had been mislaid. With regard to the account running into four figures which he says was delayed, the debt was for coal. The liability was incurred in February, and it was met in March, in the usual course of business.

"'It is stated,' he says, 'that vessels be longing to the State service have been responsible for extra expenditure by the harbour and light authorities to the tune of close on £2,000. That is false. No such expenditure has taken place, nor will it take place, for the simple reason that the necessity for it does not exist. Then he rambles on, building untruth on untruth: 'An effort was made to avoid this considerable sum being shown as a debit against the service; but the Acting Premier directed the State steamships to stand the charge.' Nine tenths of this is pure invention. The facts are these: the Western Australia broke seven fender piles at the Carnarvon jetty, and the Works Department put in a claim for the cost of the piles, as to the value of which there was some difference of opinion between the Steamship and the Works Departments. The Acting Premier gave no such direction as that indicated.

"We have a further instance of 'Observer's' knowledge of accountancy when he demands that not only interest and depreciation should be charged against the steamship service, but also a contribution to a sinking fund. He wants us to write off a stiff amount every year for depreciation and to contribute to a sinking fund long after the ships have been paid for. To prove his palpable bias, one has only to point to his astounding suggestion that a proportion of the cost of the Hopetoun jetty should be debited against the steamship service.

It is difficult to conceive that a writer who runs amok in this fashion can do much more than amuse intelligent readers. 'Observer' is evidently not well up in shipping movements, for he states that the Una was purchased for £2,000, and that she has never been used: 'Never been used!' and yet this vessel was running the mail service on the South coast for some months until the Eucla arrived. The Una did twelve trips in that service, and after that four more to Hopetoun. Then she went to the North-West for the Works Department. The crew was then disbanded and a watchman only employed since, pending the decision of the Government regarding requests for her to run to certain ports. Arrangements have now been made for the charter of this vessel for a short period, after which a decision will be come to in reference to the requests already indicated.

"We are accused of carrying timber to New Zealand at 20 per cent. lower rates than the other compames were prepared to quote. I do not know what the companies were prepared to quote; but I do know that this timber was taken at the ruling rate at the time, neither more nor less. 'Observer' says, 'When the vessel was at Wellington there was no money to pay the officers and men. Mr. Johnson twice cabled to the Government, and the New Zealand Government had eventually to make an advance.' This distinctly misleading. The officers and men, under their agreement, were not entitled to be paid in New Zealand. However, they asked for some money. The Minister cabled across and the money was cabled in due course. In the meantime, the master, instead of adhering to the crew's agreement until he had instructions from the manager to the contrary, asked the New Zealand Government for a loan. It is untrue that Mr. Johnson had anything to do with the matter except to confirm the master's cable.

"Another crime we have committed is that we sent the Kwinana to the East with a cargo of superphosphates for the use of producers there to the detriment of local farmers. 'Observer,' if sincere, must be very shallow-minded. One would think we were denuding Western Australia of one of her natural fertilisers; whereas everyone should know that phosphatic rock is imported, and the greater the market for the manufactured article – whether within the State or without – the more employment of local labour and the more prosperity. Criticism of this character carries its own condemnation, and argues either ignorance or an overwhelming faith in the gullibility of the public. He says that the superphosphates were carried at a loss. This is not true. The trip shows an excellent profit. The talk about claims and 'protracted litigation' is merely wild assertion. Since the service started there have been only three disputed claims; and two of these have been with one firm. Litigation may result in one instance, but there are no intricate points involved. Three disputed items in nine months is not a fearsome record, surely.

"'Stock-owners and shippers are calling for space on the steamships,' he states, and they want the Kwinana' The reply to this is that as far back as December last the whole of the space was booked for both steamers; and they are being run in accord ance with the arrangements made. It is too late now for those who have not booked space to cry out for the Kwinana. 'Useless and expensive trips!' 'Observer' is wrong in stating that the Adelaide Steamship Company's boats used to trade as far as Broome only during the winter. He should also be aware – if he has any knowledge of shipping – that for many years past it has been customary for the North-West mail steamer to make two trips in every 60 days. But the lack of knowledge of his subject displayed by your contributor is equalled only by his gargantuan self-assurance. 'Observer' figures out a 'loss of over £20,000.' I am not going to flaunt the financial position of the State steamship service in the columns of the Press, though it is your contributor's evident intention to tempt me to do so. I am satisfied, however, from the statements regularly submitted to me by the manager that when our balance-sheet is placed before Parliament the action of the Government in establishing the steamship service will be fully justified. In the meantime I would ask the unprejudiced section of the community – not those who, from interested motives have been defaming the service – to judge 'Observer's' £20,000 deficit in the light of the other numerous gross misrepresentations and misstatements to which he has given currency without qualm of conscience and without the slightest regard for the interests of the State."

76b["State Steamers", The West Australian, Friday 25 April 1913, page 7]

STATE STEAMERS.

CRITICISM OF THE SERVIGE.

REPLY TO THE MINISTER.

(By "Observer.")

On his own showing my article published in Tuesday's issue greatly interested Mr. Drew, the Colonial Secretary, who is the Ministerial head of the State Steamship Service. It also disgusted him. His assertion that it amused him is not evidenced in the subject matter of his reply. It certainly angered him. More than that, it provoked him to the extent that he became abusive and offensive, but, at the same time, the perturbing of his temper did not rob him of the cautiousness which prompts evasion. There is always the risk on the part of one holding such a responsible position that when he becomes angry, when he is put into a corner, he forgets for the moment the dignity of his position, and, as a consequence, delivers himself into the hands of his antagonists. Not that I want to be considered an antagonist to Mr. Drew. I have a purpose to attain, and that purpose is the direction of the public to the seriousness of a careful consideration of the State Steamship Service. I want to show that the ambitions of the Labour Government have not been realised, and that in the attempt to arrive at their goal of realisation they have damaged the State exchequer to a degree that not even experimental efforts will give justification. In the carrying out of such a purpose I am guided by the tenets of clean journalism learned during years of experience that extend over a period double that which the Colonial Secretary can boast of as his permission in the limelight of politics. My greater experience, therefore, and that which has been inculcated in the best schools, prompts me to say at once, with all respect and deference to one holding such an honorable and exalted position as that which our electors at present permit Mr. Drew to occupy, that I absolutely refuse to descend, in a discussion of a public matter, to the level which demands that such expressions as "unworthy of a schoolboy"; "gross ignorance"; "distinctly untrue"; "that is false"; "he rambles on, building untruth on untruth"; "palpable bias"; "a writer who runs amok" "distinctly misleading"; "shallow minded"; "wild assertion"; "gargantuan self-assurance"; "numerous gross misrepresentations and mis-statements"; "without qualm of conscience"; and "without the slightest regard for the interests of the State," should be resorted to, in desperation. I do not want Mr. Drew. to be amused. I want him to, at least, be very interested, and to refrain from becoming angry, offensive, or evasive. Above all, I want him to face the music in a manly fashion. I have at last enticed him within the roped arena. Practically every man at the ringside would resent his hitting below the belt, and, as a consequence, he must fight fairly.

It is difficult to conclude whether, in his effort to combat my statements, Mr. Drew has been misisinformed by his officers, whether he is ignorant of the true position of affairs, or whether, being cognisant of the position as it obtains, he has feebly attempted a game of bluff. He admits that he was afraid to discuss the subject with me. He alleges that he did not want to give to private shipping companies information which would show the inner workings of the State steamship business. I did not want it for the information of the other companies. The public, who are the shareholders in the State concern, want the information. The vigorous competition to which he refers consists, so far as I can learn, to the seeking of information with regard to the rates charged by the private companies and the cutting of those rates with, in nine cases out of ten, a loss to the State Steamship business.

The Treasury aspect of the case is the only aspect that the public have. It is the only aspect that the public want. What the public want is that in the Treasury aspect the true position shall be shown. This, it will be generally conceded, is not given with regard to the State Steamship Service. What purpose can the Minister have in quibbling over stores? There is not any fluctuation from month to month in an item of this nature, and in any case it is but a question of a few hundred pounds. As for coal and other supplies, I am going to show him that his position in these particulars is anything but a satisfactory one. Mr. Drew knows that moneys due by other departments which might materially alter the Treasury aspect of affairs are not worthy of consideration in his defence, for the reason that the amount outstanding to credit in this particular are comparatively infinitesimal.

It is a most serious thing for a Minister of the Crown to say that a statement made by a responsible writer in the leading journal of the State is distinctly untrue. He played on words when dealing with my assertion that there are accounts which have been incurred since August lest that have not been paid. He can beat the air to his heart's content. But I challenge him to call upon me to prove what I have asserted. Yesterday I was allowed to see the books of a firm that commenced to do business with the State Steamship Service early in August last. Although accounts have been rendered monthly there has not been made one payment. There are other services for which payments have not been made. When the manager of one company which does a great deal of business with the Government made personal application for a cheque at the office of the State Steamship Service he was shown a sheaf of cheques already filled in which were awaiting signature. His cheque was among the number, but although that incident occurred a month ago the cheque has not yet been paid. If the one cheque has not been paid, how many more, it may be asked, are still outstanding? At once let me ask Mr. Drew to give an assurance that there is not being made a desperate efort to stave off the payment of liabilities incurred during months past so that at the end of the financial year which is only nine weeks off there will not be revealed to the public the fact that the State Steamship Service has cost the Government a great deal more than the £20,000 that I contended the first nine months' transactions took from the taxpayers. When I wrote on Tuesday I referred to an amount running into four figures that had not been charged to expenditure in March when it should have been. Mr. Drew says that the liability was for coal – though, by the way, I did not say so – and he asserts that the liability was incurred in February and was met in March. He surely has been misinformed. The liability incurred in February was not met in March, but was met early this month. My first statement that the sum running into four figures was carried over the period which demanded that it should be shown in general expenditure before the end of March is therefore perfectly true, and is not false. If Mr. Drew would like further particulars I will he pleased to furnish them. This and the matter referred to immediately preceding will give the public an idea as to who is piling untruth upon untruth. These are two matters that Mr. Drew must answer, and when he finds what I assert is true his position demands that he will make an un qualified withdrawal of his charges of falsehood against me.

When I stated that there had been incurred an indebtedness to other departments to the extent of close upon £2,000, because of damage done to jetties and other conveniences in the Nor'-West, I had a great deal more in my mind than the breaking of seven fender piles at Carnarvon. There were beacons and lights at Port Hedland, and there is also a jetty at Derby, and of the existence of these Mr. Drew and his officers are surely aware. Will the Colonial Secretary say anything about the damage done at both these ports, and also give the public some information as to the cost of the construction of the beacons and lights and other conveniences which the State steamers destroyed. When I referred to the Acting-Premier it did not occur to me to be necessary to tell Mr. Drew that his colleague, Mr Bath, was for some time in the Eastern States, and that in his absence Mr. Collier was in temporary charge of the affairs of the State. If he cares to call for the official files he will see that Mr. Collier directed that the State Steamship Service should meet the cost of the damage done to jetties, beacons, lights, etc., at Nor'-West ports, and if he asks for estimates he will learn that the damage done is very little less than £2,000. And after he has gone into this matter he will find that I did not "build untruth upon untruth," but he will discover that I have a knowledge of a great deal more than he imagined, and I may tell him at once that I intend to make full use of that knowledge. Just for the purpose of giving him some inkling, I may say that I know just what it cost to put in the beacons and lights at Port Hedland that one of the State steamers wiped out in one fell swoop.

There are feelings of compassion engendered when one knows that he is smiting hard. That is why I did not refer to the s.s. Una as a roosting place for sea fowl. In the information given me I may have been misled with regard to the use to which the Government put that notorious little vessel from the time of her purchase by them at a price which was nearly double that at which any other intending shipping trader could have got her. But even if this did give Mr. Drew an opportunity to exult there is still the fact that she was used in her Nor'-West trip to convey three Public Works Department officers on a visit of inspection, and that her charter was at the rate of £400 per month. Even if the charge had been credited to the State Steamship Service, which has yet to be shown, there is the fact that to the taxpayer the use of the small vessel has been very expensive. After six months of use by the sea fowl the s.s. Una was chartered on Monday last to make a trip to Bunbury, and we have the assurance of the Minister that after that "a decision will be come to in reference to the requests already indicated"--whatever that may mean.

Who cares whether it was the Minister or the master of the vessel that was compelled to borrow money from the New Zealand Government to meet the wages demands of the officers and men? The feet remains that such a transaction was to the great discredit of our State. The subterfuge which the Colonial Secretary has made an effort to set up makes his positon in the matter pitiable. Let me tell him this in brief reply to his reference to this notorious trip made by a State-owned steamer to New Zealand with timber and a State Minister with his family: The rates at which the timber was carried were not only 20 per cent. lower than those offered by other companies as suggested in my article, but they were 25 per cent. lower. The people who chartered the vessel were the Millars' Timber Combine. Without entering into argument, and, in fact, in order to avoid it, I now tell Mr. Drew that at the time that the State-owned steamer was loading timber for the Combine for transhipment to three New Zealand ports another vessel was loading for the same people timber for the same ports at rates which were 25 per cent. higher than the State Service was securing. Will Mr. Drew deny that in consequence of there being no money to meet the demands of the men at the New Zealand port wharfage dues had to be paid for three days after the steamer could have been cleared. His plea that the men were not entitled to payment while yet they compelled payment is an admission of an astounding weakness in management and control.

It was pointed out by me that fertilisers were being taken away at reduced rases, while at the same time our farmers were calling for their use on our wheat areas. Mr. Drew says that the trip shows an excellent profit. How can he know that before the vessel has returned? His shipping advisers cannot yet have got their full returns. But even if she has shown a shipping profit, what can he and his Government say concerning the robbing from the producers of the fertilisers which ought to have been supplied to them instead of being carted thousands of miles to their competitors in other parts of Australia.

It is comforting to know from Mr. Drew that there is not to be any protracted litigation. That would cost the country a great deal of money. There is regret to be felt, however, in the fact that some of the meat people who were the bugbears that the Government set out to wipe off the face of the earth by the establishment of the State Steamship Service have been able solely by the use of the State steamers to get their cattle and sheep to our markets both from the Eastern States and the Nor'-West at half cost or even less than that which would have been permitted them had the State steamers not been run. And there is reason for further regret that notwithstanding all this the working man who swears by his Labour Government which he put into power is paying more for his meat to-day than he ever had to before. When I said that Mr. Drew was evasive I had in mind this business of the mismanagement in the conveyance of the sheep and cattle from the Nor'-West, and also from the Eastern States. He did not make the slightest reference to those subjects. Nor did he have anything to say in reply to my statements concerning the preference being shown to the State Steamship Service by other Departments. These constituted the gravamen of the charges against the Service. By resort to abuse he has dodged the main points in as clumsy a fashion as he and his officers avoided a discussion of the subject with me. I have, however, surely given him suficient to answer that will occupy him for some time. After he has done that I propose giving him a second instalment, for I may assure him and the public that the half has not yet been told.

76c["State Steamers", The West Australian, Monday 28 April 1913, page 7]

STATE STEAMERS.

"OBSERVER'S" CRITICISMS.

REPLY BY MR. DREW.

When interviewed yesterday by a representative of the "West Australian" with regard to "Observer's" criticism of the State Steamship Service, the Colonial Secretary (Mr. J. M. Drew) said:--

"I was absent in the country when 'Observer's' latest contribution appeared in your paper, and I had not an opportunity of reading it until Saturday. This explains my delay in replying. Having perused the article, I can see in it only a wearisome repetition of the statements which were confuted in my previous interview, and a careful avoidance of many of the facts and arguments submitted by me in refutation of the reckless assertions of the writer, who, up to the present, has not had the nerve to support his allegations with the strength of his name although we are assured by no less an authority than himself that he is 'guided by the tenets of clean journalism, learned during many years of experience in the best schools.' The bashful and retiring 'Observer' may possess all the virtues and accomplishments he claims, but to my humble way of thinking the form of journalism which stoops to the circulation of ungrounded rumours, harmful to the interests of the State, is not remarkable either for its chastity or honesty. Nor is it remarkable for its courage; for whist assaults directed against the business of an individual are ascended by considerable risk, baseless and injurious attacks on the business of the State may be made with impunity. Hence, probably, the freedom with which your variant contributor strikes right and left at the State Steamship Service, apparently without considering or caring whether or not there are grounds of justification. "It is evident 'Observer' has come to keenly realise his unfortunate blunder in endeavouring to evolve a balance-sheet from the monthly Treasury returns of revenue and expenditure, for he makes a strenuous attempt, without the slightest perceptible data for his guidance to preposterously minimise the value of the assets of the service, including coal, stores, returns from agents' unexpired insurances, moneys due by other departments, etc.--items which represent a huge figure, and which must be taken into consideration in the creation of an accurate profit and loss account. 'Observer' cannot possibly have any knowledge as to the aggregate amount of these items. Indeed, his statements show him to be miserably at sea on the subject, and I do not propose to enlighten him, although I am gratified to think that he knows a little more about accountancy now than he did at the onset, his lengthy experience in good schools notwithstanding.

"With regard to the accounts outstanding, I admitted that one had been unduly delayed. I am well aware also that in some cases prompt payment has not been made. For instance, liabilities were incurred in respect of the Kwinana prior to her New Zealand trip. Several of the accounts were not rendered until after her departure. These had to be certified to as correct by the officer authorising the expenditure; and as the vessel was away for two and a half months, the liabilities could not be discharged until after her return. Frequently a similar position arises in connection with vessels trading to the Far North. But these latter cannot be classed as unreasonable delays. As a matter of fact, they are unavoidable. Under past Governments – I know from complaints which have been made to me – there had been at times lengthy delays in the payment of accounts without the same excuse as can be offered in the case of the Steamship Service, namely the difficulties frequently in the way of expeditious certification. In reference to the cheque which I stated was paid in March, I now find that it was not actually paid until April 2, though how that fact can affect the ultimate financial position of the State Steamship Service I am at a loss to see. During the same month there was a large amount – running into four figures – owing by a Government department, which was not collected.

"The public may rest assured that there will be no 'desperate effort to stave off payment of liabilities until after the end of the financial year,' as 'Observer' has the hardhood to more than imply. The Government secured the passage through Parliament last session of a Government Trading Concerns Bill, and under that measure a strict obligation is imposed that the accounts of all trading concerns shall be properly and faithfully kept, so that a true balance may be struck for the information of the legislature. By reason of the existence of this Act it would be a grave offence for any officer of the Government to practically falsify the books by the omission of entries with the object of deceiving Parliament. Yet this loyal and devoted follower and upholder of the 'tenets of clean journalism' says – if words have any meaning – that the manager of the State Steamship Service meditates such a fraud--is in fact contemplating criminality. This seems to me to be a very serious charge to bring against Mr. Sudholz in the columns of a newspaper. If the accusation is true the manager should not he allowed to remain a day longer in the service. "'Observer repeats his utterly unfounded statement that the Western Australia did £2,000 worth of damage to the Carnarvon jetty and the Port Hedland beacons. I have consulted Captain Irvine, Chief Harbour Master, who was a passenger on board the vessel when the mishap to the wharf occurred; and he informs me that six of the seven fender piles broken at the Carnarvon jetty were already badly sprung through repeated bumping by other vessels. On his return from the North-West, Captain Irvine reported that the total amount of damage done by the State steamer at Carnarvon would be covered by £50, and he is still of that opinion. The two beacons destroyed at Port Hedland will, he says, involve an expenditure of approximately £100 each to re-erect. 'Observer' alleges the Western Australia also damaged the Derby jetty. Neither Mr. Sudholz, the Public Works Department, nor the Chief Harbour Master has received any report to that effect; and the 'damage' must have originated in the fertile imagination of one of 'Observer's' numerous informants. The original outlay, together with the expenditure on interest and maintenance, on the North-West jetties represents a very large amount; but until recently the privately owned steamers trading on that coast could, and did, damage the jetties and beacons without being called upon to pay, unless it could be proved that negligence was displayed--an absolute impossibility in 99 cases out of 100. Thousands of pounds of damage have thus remained unpaid for; but it will not be so in the future owing to an amendment of the law to which the present Government secured the sanction of Parliament.

"'Observer' now states that it was Mr. Collier who directed that £2,000 should be debited against the State Steamship Service, and that he did this during Mr. Bath's absence in the Eastern States. That is an unblushing fabrication--no milder phrase will adequately meet the position. In the first place, no such claim, or anything within leagues of it, was ever made. The Public Works Department admitted that the piles were previously in a bad way and based its demand for compensation accordingly. In the second place, Mr. Collier took no hand or part in the matter. The 'tenets of clean journalism' are not likely to be exalted when truth is trampled in the dust in this wanton fashion.

"'Observer' confesses his ignorance of the fact that the Una was for months running the South Coast mail service, and admits that in the information given him he 'may have been misled.' It is truly a pitiable position for a great literary shipping authority and critic to find himself in--that he is obliged to plead ignorance of the widely known circumstance that the Una was purchased to avoid the South Coast being cut off from a mail service except per motor car, and that she admirably discharged her functions in this respect until the Eucla arrived. It is not surprising that a writer who is so easily 'misled' should walk into seething quagmires.

"Another instance of the recklessness of the writer. He says the Una was used on her North-West trip to carry three Public Works officers on a visit of inspection. She did, I believe, carry three Public Works officers; but she also carried a full load of Government material from Fremantle to Broome, and then returned to Condon for other Government material for the same port. The further statement that the Una has been laid up for six mouths is a gross exaggeration. She has not been laid up six months or anything like that period.

"In my previous interview I pointed out that the crew of the Kwinana were not entitled to be paid in New Zealand and that the master exceeded his duty in approaching the New Zealand Government for a loan for that purpose. 'Observer' remarks now that 'owing to there being no money to meet the demands of the men wharfage dues had to be paid for three days after the steamer could have been cleared. This assertion can be easily exploded. The men made their demand as soon as the vessel anchored in the New Zealand port, and she was unloading her heavy cargo of timber for a week after the wages had been paid.

"I notice with feelings of relief he has dropped like a hot coal the proposition that the State Steamship Service should bear a proportion of the cost of the Hopetoun jetty.

"'Observer' still protests against the Kwinana taking fertilisers out of the State, and alleges our farmers are calling for them in the wheat areas. Who are those farmers? Your contributor is not aware that the vast majority of the farmers in Western Australia, on the suggestion of the Commissioner of Railways, had their fertilisers cogreyed by the trains which brought their wheat to port. And does any sane person for a moment imagine that shrewd manufacturers would export fertilisers which they could sell at their very doors unless there was a surplus in the local market? Really, it is trying to have to combat such childish ebullitions, and one is inclined to wonder whether any grown man or woman can be gulled by them.

"Then again 'Observer' comes back on 'the preference shown by other departments for the State service.' I do not know what he means – he is somewhat vague – but if he protests against Government material being carried exclusively by Government boats well, I don't think he will have an honest sympathiser outside the irritated shipping combine and its small circle of satellites. Just here let me say that the same scale of charges as applies to private individuals applies to Government departments. The insinuation that freight charges are piled on where Government departments are concerned is only what can be expected from one who has made even graver accusations without a scintilla of evidence beyond trumpery tittle-tattle and inane town gossip to support his conclusions.

"My critic says I was evasive. There was no evasion on my part, but there was a straight-out refusal to supply him with any information which would help our rivals to gain an inside knowledge of the workings of the business. In that course I shall endeavour to persevere to the end.

"In conclusion, I may say it is not my intention to take any further notice of your contributor. I have dealt with his misrepresentations merely for the purpose of exposing them, lest the public might attach some weight to them. To prevent the deception of the people, not to fight a shadow, was the sole object of my entering the realms of newspaper controversy. That object has been served so far as I can serve it. The irresponsible and masked 'Observer' may continue to draw on his unlimited stores of maritime chitchat to his heart's content, and possibly to the delight of the coterie behind him. All I ask is that the gentleman's reliability may be gauged by the number of mares' nests he has unearthed in his last two communications."