ROYAL COMMISSIONERS' HONORARIUM.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 66, 16 September 1881, Page 2

ROYAL COMMISSIONERS' HONORARIUM.

? We are not surprised to find that our exposure of the nice little sums paid to members of last year's Royal Commissions has drawn upon ns a violent attack from a paper which is understood to be the particular " organ" of one Royal Commissioner. The attack itself we can afford to disregard, but we have a few words to Bay about the " explanations" put forth by our contemporary. It says — " The ordinary pay for the Royal Commissioners is, we understand, two guineas per day. To this was added one guinea per day for travelling expenses. Wo have been informed that Mr. C. Pharazyn never made any formal claim on the Government for the former allowance, but that a cheque was forwarded to him as a matter of course, which was based on the statute allowance paid to Commissioners who were non-members of the House." Modest Mr. C. Pharazyn ! Generous Government ! Only, unfortunately, the official return now lying before us, feigned by the Accountant to tho Treasury, does not bear out the above explanation." The official statement ia that Mr. Charles Pharazyn was paid £3 18a 4d for "travelling expenses," and .£333 2s for "honorarium." To the letter ia appended a note by the Treasury Accountant that it "includes iJ224 14s, ' special allowance.' " Thatistosay, Mr. C. Pharazyn received just JJ3I7 0s 4d for his public services on that occasion. We fear we must accept the statement of the Treasury iv preference to the "inspired" journalistic version of Mr. Pharazyn's champion, who asks, indignantly :—": — " Would our contemporary assume that Mr. C. Pharazyn's time is not worth two guineas per day ? If the services of the best men of the colony are not worth such an amount, NewZealand ia very badly off." Juat so. But that expression "best men" takea a good deal for granted. We think Mr. Pharazyn was very well paid indeed for his three montha' Commissioner3hip, and may conaider himself a fortunate man.