["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."
