EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5607, 7 September 1883, Page 2

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30. The Bill was then put and passed, a* also the PubUc Works Appropriation BiU. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. On the motion of the Hon. Major Atkinson the Public Accounts Committee' was discharged: KB DABGAVILLK'b ACCUSATION. Mr Mason moved—"That the report of the Dargovflle Inquiry Committee beadopted." He said the inquiry had beett conducted without party or personal feeling. As far oa could possibly be done, every opportunity was afforded MrDarg*" ville for the purpose of establishing hi* aUegation, and they had arrived at a unanimous decision. Mr Buchanan counseUed them now ta» they were on the eve of separating to sax all differences and aUow the matter in d* pute to drop. Let the dead past bury «*- ------dead. Tho facte were now circulate* through the colony, and the public form its own opinion on the subject m<«£ pendent altogether of anything Parliameol might say. He asked moderate men «* both Bides to aid him in bringing a pacific settlement of the difference. ""* that view he moved the previous que* 1 " tion. _. Mr Montgomhet said that they sll *"jJ\ not adopt the report, or carry the _*_*_*£■ any further. He waa deeply inipresaeo - with the importance of n»» honour of the House ; stfll, he thoughttfl»r; on this matter ther*portf ully vindicatedtMj; Treasurer, and that the matter should ag t be pressed further. It would appW* "

tiie country in the light of a party vote. So quoted from the records cf the Imperial p,.-}-\ment to show that a similar case ii ' . bad not been pressed. It would be a -rise thing to press the matter no further. The Hon. Mr Bbtce agreed in the opinion just expressed, that they should depart in peace and sin no more. That was not only his own opinion, but he believed that of every one of his coUeagues. No doubt the aUegations had been made in the heat of debate, and now that it hod arrived at this stage he thought the House might fairly expect that the charge would lie withdrawn. The slightest expression of regret from the member for Auckland City ■prist would at once end everything. Mr Dabgaville said there was a principle underlying this question. It was troether or not a member was to be deterred from expressions which he believed to be the honest truth by any fear of consequences. He would be unworthy of a seat in the House if he refrained from giving expression to his convictions. It waß a packed Committee to whom the investigation was remitted. The Speakxb caUed Mr Dargavifle to Older, and he withdrew the wor "packed." Mr Dabgavillb—The report of the Committee was a most unfair and one-sided one, and not in accordance with the evidence. That was his opinion; he did not care what the opinions of others might be. There had been no even handed holding of the scales of justice in the inquiry. He quoted largely from the evidence, and submitted that every important part of the charge he had made was fuUy supported by the evidence. The evidence showed that the Treasurer was a party to the transaction with the Bank. It had attempted to be shown that the Insurance Commissioner had power to make the investment. No one who knew the two men— the overbearing character of the Treasurer on the one hand, and tbe weak obsequious sycophantic Commissioner — could doubt but that the former was cognizant of the investment. He quoted from the Public Revenues Act, 1878, to show that this class of investment was iUegal. The Commissioner would not have dared to make such an investment had he not had the concurrence of the Treasurer. He was fully convinced that the Treasurer had unduly favored that institution, and, holdas he did, such opinions, he was not to be deterred from expressing them. He had acted from a sense of duty, and, in his own mind, he felt he would not exchange places with the men who were trying to screen themselves from the consequences of their misdeeds, and had attempted in this matter to -.rork out his

political ruin. He pointed out the discrepancy in the statements of witnesses, despite the fact that they knew beforehand the subjects on which they were to be examined. The Treasurer was in possession of the opinion of the late AttorneyGeneral and pr-.-sent Solicitor-General that these investments were illegal, and yet, in the face of that knowledge, he must be held to have made this investment. A further opinion from the present Solicitor-General wa3 taken since these proceedings originated, which confirmed tbe foregoing opinion as to the illegaUty of the deposit. He must therefore have known that hs action was Illegal, and it was on the knowledge of that that he (Mr Dargaville) founded his

charge. Again, in the Public Revenues Act just passed there was a clause making such deposits legal. He could have no stronger evidence of the illegality of what had previously been done. It might be that the Treasurer interpreted the law in a different way, but then be {Mr Dargaville) had the tame right to hi 3 interpretation, and if tho free expression of opinion was to be stifled by the fear of a Committee's investigation, they might bid fareweU to the Überties of the people. The Government had tried to guage the free expression of the opinions of the representatives of the people. He challenged them to follow up this report to its legitimate issue and declare his seat vacant. He would then have an appeal to his constituents, and then they would find who was in the right. To stop at merely adopting the r&.«rt would be pusUlanimous, and deserve contempt. He would on this single

question of poUtical corruption meet before his constituents the best man the 7 potential ring could bring againtt bim. He supposed, however, that Major Atkinson would be satisfied with being whitewashed by Mr Mason and his servile foUowing. AU independent members had already gone away. When he recaUed oU the political corruptions of which this Government had been giulty, he was amazed ot his own moderation. He absolutely refused to withdraw a single word or express a single regret. He believed he was justified in even going farther, and he defied the Government,

and was prepared to accept any consequences, and any decision of that House on the matter he would treat with the contumely which it to his mind deserved.

Mr Tubnbull regarded the report as a reasonable and fair one. They might - simply adopt it and carry the matter no further. The member for Auckland City West Beemed desirous of being made a martyr of, and had exhibited great warmth; but, really, the House should not take any further notice of the matter.

Mr Hussthouse said it was a miserable exhibition they had listened to. Mr Dargaville told them he would defy the House, and the sooner they proceeded to an extreme the better. It was a m©3t humiliafc--ing exhibition they had just witnessed. Mr Seddon argued that the whole matter was simply a diversity of opinion. Such being the case, he thought it would be unfair to censure a member who bad the courage of his opinions simply because they did net happen to agree in their opinions. Mr Moss supported the amendment. What constituted poUtical corruption was * a very wide question, and one upon which no two men were Ukely to agree. What -one man would caU gross poUtical corrup-J tion another man would say was no corrupt tion at all. The honor of the House; ~~a not affected by what one members aight say or do. What affected the of the House more waa the idea that Par* Uament should do anything towards sup-j pressing freedom of debate. Mr Shaw said that the charges macCfe by Mr DargaviUe that the Treasurer coulo? not hold his seat but for the influence ah the Bank.of New Zealand, was a direcfe jßßolt, aggravated by the fact that it ha& teen made repeatedly and again reiterate* that night. A charge like this reflected upon every member of the House, more *speci__y those members who supported, toe Treasurer in office. It meant this that; they -were the willing tools of the Bank of Hew Zealand. As a gentleman it was Mr? poreaviUe'a duty to have said he bowed' to the decision of the House, although he' might have thought at the time that he was warranted in making the imputation"

Mr Dodson said Mr DargaviUe evidently' gloried in the Uttle notoriety this hod giv«a him, and was too obtuse to see wast kind of notoriety it was. In these circumstances it would be wise to oUow the aatter to drop. No one had suffered by* w speech on the charges made. On thar centaury, every one who spoke of the F* tt l r * t *£ l condemned the offence. Mm Hoped the Treasurer would see his way tof rely on his own honor, and let the thing wop. °i Mr Harris defended Mr DargaviUe, con' wading that in justice to himself he could act withdraw the charge or express regret. «r Skefhabd said that after the speech* »ou_by_tr it was impossible«o matter could rest where it was. The-* of the Committee was arrived al wtt-out o Bingle division, although it was* imposed of members from both sides o& the Bouse Tbey w e re bound to supporf «» .Cmmnittee who L_J been so unfairly. Mr Shi-han said that language fffll nrongwr than that used by -LTDoiI-vUiI f*d without cl__le_ge. Eewui adrocate for strong bug,, age, but he wouf| %LJ 7 **? b y older more ab» Renders and take up a comparativell y«ng member. What man lud bee* more persistently than himse_l «d yet no one hod ever taken exception tl for SS" Hi-self to blaml mod e 0 f expreaiion ofteJ m. «« made no charges of personal dishonor!

!£_£_*«** «tar-^_

and having done =0, the matter should have dropped. All precedent v/ui.t .te prove that at tbe time the objectionable words were used, they tbould have been taken down, and the offending party asked to withdraw them. The higher principle they had to look to was the effect this committee of enquiry was Ukely to exercise on the freedom of speech. It was a significant fact that the Speaker aUowed the alleged objectionable language to be made use of without checking the speaker. It was not the case that the trial was a strictly impartial one. The accused could not get the witnesses he wanted, while those on the other side were available to the Government. The House could take charge of its own honor, and did not require any Committee to vindicate that honor. He hoped the amendment would be carried.

Captain McKenzie and Mr Stevens supported the motion, and condemned Mr DargaviUe's speech. Mr Babbon hoped the Government would accept the amendment. The question was then put, and the House divided. Ayes 30—Messrs Beetham, Bryce, Buchanan, W. C, ConoUy, Dick, Dodson, Driver, Hobbs, Hurst, Hursthouse, Johnston, C. J., Johnston, W. W., KeUy, Leveßtam, Mackenzie, Mason, Merriß, Pearson, Petrie, Postlethwaite, Rolleston, Shaw, Shephard, Stevens, Trimble, Watt, Whitaker, White, J. 8., Wilson, J. G. Noes 17 Messrs Barron, Brown, J. C, Buchanan, J., Daniel, Feldwick, Grey, Harris, Hutchison, Joyce, McKenzie, J., Montgomery, Seddon, Sheehan, Shrimski, Smith, TurnbuU, White, W. The amendment being thus lost, the motion for the adoption of the report was put, when aU who had voted in the minority of the previous division, except Messrs Barron and White, withdrew. Major Atkinson also withdrew. Mr Babbon demanded a division, when the motion was carried by 29 to 2. The House then at 10.30 adjourned to 3 p.m. on Saturday for the prorogation.