THE DEFIANT AUCKLANDER.

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 116, 13 November 1900, Page 4

THE DEFIANT AUCKLANDER.

One of the Auckland .members, Mr. Napier to wit, has at least the courage , of his opinions, for he not only defends the £40 sessional allowance for members but actually maintains that the procedure by which it was Voted was quite proper. Mr. Napier in this instance seems to confound legality with propriety. The vote was perfectly legal, or the money would not have been paid; but the question is not whether it was legal, but how it came to be legal. There is by Act of Parliament a fixed statutory honorarium for members of the Legislature, and had this £40 yote been placed on the Estimates last' year and voted in the ordinary way the AuditortGeneral would have been compelled to block payment. A mere vote on the Estimates could not override the express provisions of an Act of Parliament. The iniquitous Public Revenues Act which the Premier forced through the House by the aid of hints about the extra allowance, however, changed the law, and, among other vagaries, legalised all such illicit payments made contrary to Acts of Parliament by the simple process of a vote on the Esti- • mates. No sooner was the Public -Revenues Act passed than it was used to cover a vote for the "Forty-pounds Steal." The transaction was legal, but was it honourable or proper? As a lawyer Mr. Napier naturally i 3a y s strict regard to the letter of the law, but as a legislator he should also recognise the claims of public morality.