The Press. FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1898. THE HON. JOHN M'KENZIE AT RICCARTON.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10059, 10 June 1898, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1898. THE HON. JOHN M'KENZIE AT RICCARTON.

The Hon. John M'Kenzie is in error if he thinks that this journal, against which he is so fond of inveighing, has any special grudge against him, or that it is impossible for those who differ from him in politics to discover one redeeming trait in his character. For ourselves, we freely admit that he has his good qualities. Like his leader, he has raised himself from the ranks by force of character. We have no doubt his anxiety on behalf of his "boys" in the Bushy Park affair arises as much from paternal solicitude as from a desire to justify his own conduot in the matter, We are pre.

pared to allow that even as a Minister he has exhibited some good points. As Minister for Agriculture he has shown a keen interest in his work, he has practical knowledge of the subject, and undoubtedly some very useful work has been done by the department which he was largely instrumental in bringing into existence. On the other hand, there are many of Mr. M'Kenzie's views which we believe to be not only unsound but injurious to the community, and both his administration and the tone which he and Mr. Seddon have introduced into our public life leave much to be desired. As regards Mr. M'Kenzie personally, we feel very much as Mrs. Poyser did in regard to Mr. Craig in " Adam Bede," when she remarked that she had " nothing to say again , " him, on'y it was a pity he cou T dna' " be hatched o'er again an' hatched " different." If such a very unlikely event were to take place we might get a John M'Kenzie, who could be trusted to speak of his political opponents without misrepresentation, and without vulgar abuse; and who would not bluster and bounce under the impression that he was displaying bravery and independence. But then it would be a very different John M'Kenzie from the one who appeared in the Eiccarton schoolroom last night.

One of the main objects of his visit, it appears, was to " defend some of his family" from the " slanders cast upon them" by the Hon. Mr. Eolleston in his recent speech. In other words it was to give his version of the Bushy Park affair. Now what did Mr. Eolleston say about this? We reprint his words, for Mr. M'Kenzie, following his usual practice, merely twisted and perverted them of quoting them correctly. Mr. said:—

" Bnshy Park btul bc*.n often brought up by Ministers as a thing in which the Opposition had grosely wroncjed them. Hβ (the speaker) had never spoken strongly on Bushy Park. A great blander had been made, and the transaction was one that never should have taken place, but he had never accused any Minister of corruption in the matter, although it was an unfortunate transaction. He did not Bay that Bushy Park should not have been sold to Mr M'Kenzie's sons at the full price. One would, however, at least presume that the price was to be paid, but as a matter of fact not a sixpence had been paid up. Would not anybody be trusted to see regarding property that they were dealing with that they took some means of testing the market in the matter, to be sure that they got the best terms that could be got ? The question was, however, one for Mr M'Kenzie and his constituents. The Bushy Park estate was promised again and again to be cut up so that the people in the neighbourhood of Pahnerston South should have a chance of settling upon it. That was the question between Mr. M'Kenzie and his constituents. Singularly enough he did not appear before his constituents at Palmeraton when he went down to Balclutha. He (the speaker) was content to leave the decision in the hands of the people of Palmerston. He had made no charge of corruption, but he thought it was a blunder worse than a crime."

This is surely moderate enough as criticism. Yet Mr. M'Kenzie considers it sufficient justification foe a special visit to Ricoarton, breathing out fire

and slaughter, and threatening Supreme Court actions for slander, and heaven knows what besides. And what is his reply to Mr. Roixeston's very mildly-worded remarks? He denies having promised that Bushy Park should be cut up, and he repeats his statement about his sons having paid some £2400 before they jvere allowed possession. Mr. said they paid nothing on the land, and Mr. M'Kenzie last night, in a shuffling sort of way, admitted that the payment referred to was on account of implements and stock. The real facts in connection,, with Bushy Park Mr. M'Rexzie did not face last night, and he has never yet attempted to face them. They have been put in a very succinct form by our contemporary the " Otago Daily Times," and we reproduce them here:—

"Bushy Park was in the hands of the Assets Board (of which, by the way, Mr. Seddos is a member); a large number of settlers in the district were anxious to have it cut up for settlement ; but the elections were on just then, and shortly after they were over Mr. M'Kenzie, jun., took the place of the manager who had been removed from the estate. Then the Land Purchase Board is moved to report on the land and reports unfavourably—of land which ultimately sells readily at £8 an acre. A vague advertisement i 3 put in the newspapers referring to all the Assets Board's properties without specially mentioning any particular one. A possible purchaser inquires of the Chairman of the Assets Board about the property, and asks the price. The answer comes that a price cannot be named, as the property is 'to be put up to auction in March.' Before March arrives the property passes quietly into the hands of the Minister's sons."

Mr. M'Kenzie cannot take this plain statement of facts and answer it. He finds it more convenient to bluster and bounce and talk of possible actions for slander. It was excruciatingly funny last night to hear him challenge Mr. Rolleston to repeat his statements " outside that schoolroom " so that "he might be made to prove his words in a court of law." Nobody knows better than Mr. M'Kenzie that the Riccarton schoofroom is no sanctuary of privilege. Nobody knows better than he where such a sanctuary is to be found. Safe under the shield of parliamentary privilege, in his seat in the House, Mr. M'Kenzie has time after time shot his arrows of slander at persons who have incurred his dislike, not even sparing Magistrates on the Bench and the Judges of the land. He has been challenged and pressed again and again to step outside the walls of Parliament and snoot those arrows, where he could be got at, and like the political coward and bully that he is, he has steadfastly refused. If Mr. Rolleston' s remarks are defamatory, the walls of the Riccarton schoolroom will not protect him ; he can be proceeded against. This journal can be proceeded against for printing those remarks if Mr. M'Kenzie thinks it worth his while. But wo have no fear of anything of the kind. Equally thin was Mr M'Kenzie's defence of Mr Seddon's bill for expenses, the Ministerial connection with syndicates, and the scandalous waste of money at Parliamentary Buildings. Mr Seddon's bill for £1750 was for his return passage and for six weeks in London, where all his hotpl bills were paid by the British Government. To compare this with the expenses charged by Sir Julius Vogeli or Sir Willam Fxtzhebbebt when they were engaged for months negotiating loans and transacting business for the colony, is absurd. The proper thing would have been to compare Mr. Seddon's bill with the bills sent in by the other Premiers who went Home at the same time. But then Mr. M'Kenzie would have had to admit that Mr. Seddon charged as much as three other Premiers put together, and that would have been decidedly awkward.

In regard to the syndicate business, Mr. M'Kenzie could only plead that it had not yet been shown that Mr. Seddon's duties as a member of the Board of the Anglo-Continental Syndicate had conflicted with his duties as Premier. How can the public tell what is going on behind the scenes ? Seeing that one of the functions of the Syndicate is to obtain concessions from the Government, is it not obvious that the two positions held by Mr. Seddon are absolutely incompatible? Mr. M'Kenzie tried to defend his own connection with the Colonial Distribution Company on the same grounds, by pretending that it was impossible the interests of the Company and those of the colony could conflict. How about the Valentine appointment? Mr. M'Kenzie was discreetly silent on the subject. Mr. Valentine was imported by the present Government ostensibly as a dairy expert. This colony paid some £1400 to bring him out and perfect his education by enabling him to tour the Continent, the Australian colonies, and New Zealand at our expense. He never did anything for New Zealand to speak of, but he acquired some very valuable experience for himself. As soon as he had done this he was sent Home again to float that very company of which Mr. M'Kenzie is a director, and of which Mr. Valentine is still a paid servant!

In conclusion we may say that if Mr. M'Kenzie thought to injure Mr. Bolleston by invading his constituency in this way, at a time when the honourable member for the district is incapacitated by illness, he is greatly mistaken. The electors of Riccarton like fair play, they know something about gentlemanly instincts, and they know and respect Mr. Boixeston. Last night's experience will enable them to know a little of Mr. M'Kenzie. That may or may not raise him in their estimation, but it will certainly not cause them to think less of their representative—a man whom not only Canterbury, bat the colony at large, delights to honour.