The political and unremunerative railways of Victoria, which have been discussed in the chapter dealing with that Province, could not have been constructed but for the easy access to large funds. Another aspect of the question has been emphasised in an article published by the Sydney _Bulletin_[1] which, however much an Englishman may demur to its Republican principles, must be admitted to be an authority on Australasian topics. A strong plea is put forward for the necessity of defining by Act of Parliament what kind of works should be charged to loan-moneys, and what should be charged to revenue. The advantages, it is contended, will be threefold; the attention of the country will be drawn to the matter; the Loan Estimates go through so rapidly that very few people are aware how the thing is worked. The lender will know the destination of his money, and all treasurers will be placed on a level, whereas, at present, "the dishonest treasurer who makes a surplus by using borrowed money for road repairs and all manner of other ordinary expenditure is a heaven-born financier, while the honest one who doesn't is driven out of {247} office, either for having a deficit, or for increasing taxation, and is a failure either way." Official figures are quoted for New South Wales in order to prove that during the years 1885-1890, which covered the flotation of several loans, surpluses and deficits alternated as the treasurer was or was not able to dispose of borrowed funds. Indirectly, of course, many of the public works which do not produce a direct revenue may be of financial benefit to the State, through an increase of population and the encouragement of settlement; but it is a hazardous principle to borrow money for their construction.