THE BANKING INQUIRY.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9520, 12 September 1896, Page 6

THE BANKING INQUIRY.

We seem to _ft getting further than ever away from what were supposed to be the real objects of the Banking Inquiry. It was understood that the two principal points to be cleared up by the Committee were, firstly, whether the Hon. J. G. Ward, in promoting the Banking legislation and the purchase of the Colonial Bank, was actuated solely by reasons of public policy, or whether his own personal business relations supplied the chief motive power; and, secondly, whether, in purchasing the business of the Colonial Bank, the Bank of New Zealand made a reasonably good bargain. (Now, as regards the Hon. Mr. Ward, it has been distinctly stated that that gentleman is not to be called as a witness, and so far any attempt to enquire into his affairs has been treated as if that were the last question which the Committee ought to presume to handle. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how Mr. Ward can be satisfactorily exculpated, or, indeed, how the public can be expected to accept as conclusive any decision which the Committee may come to in regard to his position in the matter. Then, in reference to the purchase otthe Colonial Bank, the public cannot help noting that all the witnesses called upon this point are really interested parties. We have had the opinion of Mr. Watson, wh<f helped to negotiate it, that it was a good purchase, and we have had similar evidence from Directors of the Bank of New Zealand, who sanctioned it, and who are, therefore, responsible for the transaction. We confess that we should like to see some witnesses called who have had nothing to do with.the purchase, and, therefore, can be relied upon to give an unbiassed judgment. We do not expect, however, that such witnesses will be called. The Banking Inquiry is not held for the purpose of finding out things, but to gloze them over—to bury up the real issues in a mass of irrelevant detail. As a means of diverting public attention from the very lucid explanations given by Mr Justice Williams it has its uses, but everybody who was confiding enough at the first to suppose that it was going to shed further light on the question has given up the notion long since. What surprises us is that Ministers should care to prolong the farce when they must know that the public have long since ceased to be deluded by it.