EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9445, 17 June 1896, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. THE COLONIAL TREASURER. Mr SEDDOJST said that, under the exceptional circumstances of the present position, he thought the Government would be consulting the convenience of both eidee of the House if they allowed the debate that commenced before 5.30 to continue that night. Agreed to. Sir ROBERT STOUT regretted be should have to make any remarks that night. He thought it was exceedingly unfortunate that an hon. gentleman who had resigned office should make attacks on members and persons outside the House, who had no means of defending themselves. If they were to have anymore attacks such as Mr Ward made that afternoon they must say nothing more about the dignity of the New Zealand Parliament. Mr Ward had stated that attacks had been made on his private affairs in the House. He (Sir Robert Stout) denied that any such attacks had been made in the House, either this session or last. What he had said was that if any member of the House had taken advantage of the writing off of certain accounts in the C list it was a most improper transaction, and ha said so still. He had never referred to Mr Ward's private affaire either on the platform or in the House. He gave an unqualified denial to Mr Ward's \ statement that he (Sir Robert Scout) employed a man to write articles in a certain paper for him. If Mr Ward knew the gentleman in question better, he wonld find he had large journalistic experience, and did not merit the remarks Mr Ward made about him. He replied in detail to several charges Mr Ward made against him, and contended that he had effectually dealt with them. He defended his action respecting the Banking legislation, and said the Pine Company had received no favours from the Bank of New Zealand. On the contrary, he was convinced that, owing to his action in the House, the Government had influenced the officials of the Bank to punish the Company. So fir as he was personally concerned he was only a shareholder, and he did not object to any Committee of Investigation whatever, as he had done nothing he was ashamed of. What ground, therefore, was there for the charges Mr Ward brought against him ? He denied that he had ever attacked Mr Ward previously, and no one regretted more than he did that Mr Ward was in his preaent position. He felt sure that the House was exceedingly sorry that the late Treasurer, in refciriug from the Government, should have adopted each tactics as he had done. Mr SEODON resented the tone adopted by Sir Robert Stout, and be hurled back the oharges made by that gentleman against tbe Government. He dented chat the, Government had in any way influenced the Directors of the Bank of New Zealand against Sir Robert Stoat or his Company. Id proved to him that certain people had been absolutely determined to ruin his late colleague, bis wife and children. There was no doubt that certain men in this colony Mid also the Prets were absolutely beat on pulling down the Liberal adminUlratloa.

Hβ charged Sir Robert Stout with being the author of a number of articles in a Wellington paper, which were meant to damage the Government. He had even composed poetry of such a character as was a disgrace. (Sir RtJBEUD STOUT—"I don'b write poetry.*') It was in the hon. gentleman's writing at any rate, and it accused members of the House of being dumb dogs. He felt aorry for the gentleman, who was an ex-Premier of the colony, who did some good service for New Zea'aad. He regretted indeed that Sir Robert Stout should have descended to such tactic*. Mr Ward was charged with having outraged the Standing Orders in his speech that afternoon ; oub when a member was a Chairman .of a public Company ha was not protectel by the Standing Orders. Sir Robert Stout had stated in the rece3s that he (Mr Ssddon) had taken a certain position in a company for the sake of the pay he received. Was that not reference to the private affairs of Ministers? He had repeated on the platform the practice of attacking Ministers' characters, an American principle. Tho3e who had attacked and vilified Mr Ward had now accomplished their object, and his wife and family were practically in the streets. He was going to speak plainly on this matter, and said that instead of assistance being rendered to prevent such a state of things they had gloated over it. (Several members, "Who?") Why the National Association and those in its pay. He felt very snre these were very few Pressmen in this colony who would lend themselves for purposes of writing down Mr Ward or any other member. It had occurred in this colony for the first time, aud he hopod it> would never

occur again. Hβ denied Sir Robert Stout's charge that he (Mr Seddon) knew what was in the A, B and C lists, and knew nothing about them, neither were Govern-

meufc any party to writing off £55,000. As far as he knew, Mr Ward was the only victim of the banking legislation passed by the Government. Thousands of working

men had been benefited by it, bub the Treasurer was the only one ruiued by it. Instead of mulcing Mr Ward the target he had been ma<ie, it would have profited New Zsalmd if it had come to the rescue and saved Mr Ward from the position he now occupied. of the action of the Press Association in giving so much more publicity to the J. G Ward Compauy's affiura than to other Companies', and declared thafc tlie whole of the parsecution (for he coull call it nothing else) had been done for political purposes. If it were in his power to stave off trouble of this kiucl he should siok nil political differences and come to the rescue of even an opponent. Sivßobsrb Stout had no right to assume that the Government were cognisant of the details of the agreemeut. All hs (Mr Saddon) knew about it, more than other members, was about; the question of furniture, and when consulted about this matter he advised to split the difference, as it was a comparatively small sum. He Field that the balance-ahseb of the J. G. VVavil Company was no more a fraud*than the balnuce-ahaete of other Companies, and there were many Companies in the colony iv a worse position. As to the last bivance-sheeb, Mr Ward was nob in the colony when it was drawn up, and had nothing whitever to do with the £30,000 transaction. Hal he prepared the balance-sheet, he (Mr Seddon) would hive beeu the first to denounce him. He (Mr Ward) had already stated that when he first heard of the £30,000 he refused to allow it to go back to the Company ; but it was nevertheless stated that it had gone back. Why was not something said with respect to the Managors and Directors of the Colonial Bank over this transaction ? He failed to see why Mr Ward should have to bear the whole brunt of it. It w*3 evident that wavrant was given with the consent of somebody, and although Mr Ward was not in the country at tho time he had to bear the whole blame in this matter. There might be some explanation of this matter when it came before the Select Committee. Nothing painel him so much as the position the colony was placed iv today. As the honour of their public men was in their keeping, Those who had been attacking Mr Ward for the. purpose of getting at the Government were responsible for the present state of things. He considered the attacks made on his late college were unmanly and unfair. There was nothing corrupt Jn Mr Ward's action respecting the Banking legislation.' Ou the contrary, he had Buffered severely in promoting it. With all reapscb for the Judgo's decision he thought, considering the 'importance of the matter, it was a cruelty to keep the decision over so long. Bat there might have been good reason for it. > Mr DUTHIE thought all the debate that was going on was for the purpose of confusing the isaacs ab stake. He held that Mr Ward bad in no way elucidated matters. Mr Ward's fiiianciiil position to day was due to his own plunging and reoklesl carrying on of his business. He reminded the House that although Mr Ward had spoken for two hours, only ten minutes were devoted to a defence of his own actions. All the rest was spent in bitter attacks on members of the House, as well as people outside it. . Mr Ward had been good enough to refer to his (Mr Dathie's) private business, but that was his own affair. He conducted his business in his own way, and Mr Ward was at liberty to drag bis business before the whole colony. His banker was the Bank of Australasia, and his London banker was the Bank of England, which would give Mr Ward all the information he desks 1. He owed no person a penny, and nobody asked him twice for an account. Consequently, he cared nothing for the Pronaier'e or Mr Ward's reference to his business. He had felt it his duty to speak on this banking question on public platforms ; bub he denied that he had acted in any way for political reasons, aa Mr Ward had stated. He deprecated the language need by Mr Ward that afternoon, and the abuse he had levelled at his opponents, and denied that he - (Mr Duthie) had anything to withdraw or apologise for. Mr Ward could not free himself of responsibility in not making himself acquaiuted with the position of the Colonial Bank before the amalgamation. The balance-sheet pub* lished at the time was only a partial exposure, and Mr Ward should have explained the position to hie colleagues more fully than he had done. He went into the whole question at considerable length, and Mr John Murray's connection with it, and gave it as his opinion- that the banking conspiracy was the most dastardly thing that had ever occurred in the colony. With respect to Mr Ward being absent fro.n the colony when the £30,000 draft was sent forward for oats which were not there, he (Mr Duthie) did not attach much importance to his absence, but thought the Bank Managers were as much to blame for the transaction as Mr Ward's manager. He thought a more dishonourable transaction = . had never' taken place, and. asserted that Mr Ward must take the responsibility, for it. When the Premier said Mr Ward was not responsible owing to his abseucs from the colony he was simply talking to tho galleries and not to intelligent men. He again deprecated the vehement language need by Mr Ward that afternoon, and said it was a degradation of their public nieo. Mr J. M'KENZIE said Mr Dutbie deprecated the present position, but he contended that the hon. gentlemen and bis friends were responsible for it by dragging private aflfoira before the House. He had only risen for the purpose of denying one or two things said by Mr Duthie. One of these was that there were no cut and dried arrangements between the Government and the Bank of New Zealand prior to the Banking legislation, *.nd the reason why they were forced to take the position they had done was because of the receipt of a telegram from London that they could nob keep the Bank open for another week without some assistance. The fact was that the hon. gentleman opposite could not possibly give the Governmsut credit for doing anything creditable. Mr Dathie must know, aa a bnsiuess imu, that the Government could not possibly know all the details of the Bank business. What had Mr Ward gained by the banking legislation ? Why, he was a ruined man. He declared that iv every transaction in which Mr Ward had been engaged he had done all for the good of the colony. He was surprised to bear Sic Robert Stout assert that the Ministers iuflne»ced the Directors of tlie" Bjuik of K«w. ZfJAUnd against him, bat did Kir Robert btout really believe that he (Mr M'Kenzie) would demean himself by such action? He could assure the hou. gentleman that the Government had not influenced the Directors in an* way. As a matter of fact. Hβ (Mr M'K'eczie) rarely •poke to the Dlrecora at a>l. With respect to th» letter referred to by Sir Rob«rt Stout,

that gentleman knew very well the conditions under wh'.ch he (Mr M'KLenzie) joined the Ministry. He had done his best to reconcile Sir Robert Stont and Mr Seddoo, bat had tailed. Sir Robsrt Stout was, therefore, welcome to produce any private letter of his referring to thit matter. He hoped Sir Robert Stout would never again allege that Ministers .influenced, the Bank Directors with respect to any private accounts.

Dr. NEWMAN accused the Premier of refraining from saying bitter things but getting somebody else to do >t. That must have been the case that afternoon, when the late Treasurer used such laugusge as astonished the House. Ihe fact was that the Premier and his Government had done the blackest thuigs ever heard of in the history of the colony, aud they tried to stills & discussion of their actions by flinging mud at the Opposition. But they would hear of their misdoings before the ses-iion was over. Mr Ward had attacked his (Dr. Newman's) business transactions, but all his dealings had been straightforward and his late partner and himself were good friende to this day. He had lived in Wellington for tweuty yeare and had always paid his way honestly, and no one h*d been able to say anything against his character. He defied Mr Ward to touch him bocause he was in trouole himself. Aβ for the ruin of the late Treasurer, of which they had heard so much, he asserted that Mr Ward's prosperity had been a bogus one, and this present trouble was only an accumulation of years past. Referring to the banking! legislation, he deprecated the practice of Miui3tere continually dragging up the name of the late Sir Hairy Atkinson for the purpose of attacking his memory. Only chat afternoon the names of both Sir Harry Atkinson -and Sir F. Whitaker had been dragged up tor the purpose of attacking their memories, which he thought was most improper.

Mr WARD said he had been known in Southland for over thirty years, and he asserted that even it he resigned no man in the coloay could stand against him in his district. He aeain referred to the attacks made on him by people whom he regarded as vipers. Dr. Newman bad stated at Waug.tnui that if any member of the House had £55,000 written off his account he ought to be hissed off the stage, and thab was the kind of attack made against him. Dr. Newman had insinuate!? tliit ha (Mr Ward) had actually tried to def i'.uid the revenue by getting produce carried on the railways free ; but he challenged him to prove that statement, and he warned Dr. Newman to clear himself from a charge which he (Mr Ward) had alt e-uly made against him that afternoon, m connection with a Company with which he had been associated. As to Mr Duthie's assertion that he had not attacked his private aff*tre, he now challenged Mr-Wilson, member for, Otaki, to <ieny that he lrid seuc articles to the Investors , Rivieio attacking him. He also asked Mr Duthie whether he would have been able lo carry on a successful business if he iiad had sleuth hounds at his heels trying to diin*ge him in the markets oE the world. How would that hon. gentleman have succeeded if he had been in that position for the laifc five years as he (Mr Ward) had bean? Where had Dr. Newman got bis iuformat.ion respecting the Bank transactions ? If he got it properly the olHcial who gave it .should be dismissed from the service ; but if improperly, then ho should be hissed from the platform. He charged Mr Duthie with having got information from men who wera sworn to secrecy, and they had yet to find out who was responsible for this state of things. He threw the re3poissibiiity ou Dr. Newman and Mr Duthie of saying how they got this information. (Mr DUTUIIC—" What do you refer to ?") lie was referring to information conuected with his (Mr Ward'a) private affaire, which coullonly be gained by some official of the Bank. "As to the £30,000 transaction, if if, had coins back again to the debit of the Farmer.* , Association he (Mr Ward) would h*ve baen guilty of what the Judge afatsd, but it had never come back, and had not'coma out before the Court at all. He detcude'd his, abatement that three ■ members of a former Ministry had had £150,000 afeaick off the books of the Bauk of New Zoaltnd, and eaid he ,had as much respect for the memory of: Sir Harry Atkiiison and Si|*;F. Whitaker as any man in the House. (Sir ROBtiKT STOUT—"How do you know that the statement J3 true?") He kuew very well, a i<l tho House would shortly know also. 'Why should ha ha selected for attack when the Bank of New Zealand had not lost a single penny by h»3•■■; affura. lv- nuking his defencs he was bound to refer to those ineu from: whom attacks came. He hail ;i righs to ask'the House to investigate the affairs of- the gentlemen to whom ho had referred. There were some members of the House who had treated him with absolute aid gross unfairness, and had. writ tan aud cried him down in every direction. lie had not had fair play in any respect over the matter. His opponents could take everything ho had got, but they could not take himself, and he again asserted there were a few members of the House who had worked with others outside the House to bring about;' his ruin. He should give soma ot them au opportunity of meeting him in the Supreme Court, where he. woaLi, not be protected.by Parliamentary privileg?. Mr DUTHIE explained .that- the whole of the statements he had rnaie respecting Mr Ward's*; affairs were to be tonnd in Mr Ward's own evidence, v

Mr WARD asked whether Mr Dtithie had not referred to hi 3 private affairs two months ago. iMr DD I'lIIR—«« Certainly not." The motion for the adjournment was lost on the voices, and the Hoii3e rose at 11 o'clock."