MR. FISHER'S CHARGES.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 35, 10 August 1905, Page 2

MR. FISHER'S CHARGES.

FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. THE AFFIDAVITS RETURNED. ENQUIRY FURTHER DELAYED. The main features of Mr. Fisher's fresh attack on the Government in connection with the alleged Seddon voucher, and the Premier's riply to the implied demand for an enquiry, were published in last 'night's Post. Wheii wo went to press there was every appearance that tho motion by Mr. Fisher to lay his letter to Mr, • Speaker on the table would be "talked out"— lhat the hour for the dinner adjournment would arrive before a decision had been come to — but the end came in another way. The Premier had evidently gauged, the sympathies of his followers correctly, and wfls certain of a majority against the New Liberal Party, and by 4.30 the debate was over. Mr. Fisher took about twenty minutes to reply, and before 5 o'clock the New Liberal Party's motion, which was merely a, preliminary to a demand for an enquiry, had been defeated by 46 votes to 21. Two members paired, so that 69 members out of a total of 80 were accounted for on the division. Below will be found a Condensed account of the proceedings after We went to press. ■ Tho Minister for Public Works, continuing his remarks (tho first portion of which were reported yesterday), read extracts from reports of tho Dunedin public meeting, in support of his statement thai the public would not listen to the Party. If, he continued* a payment was made to Captain Seddon there must be a voucher for- it, and if it was an illegal payment how was it that the Audit Office passed it 7 He was satisfied the House- would recognise that the attitude of Mr, Fisher was not one which should receive tho supp6rt of members. The discussion was carried on by Mr. Major, who urged that jib some members .knew tho purport of the affidavits, every member should know them. He opposed the proposed granting of an indemnity, and said if the Civil Servants involved were right, they did not need an indemnity. It wasn't a question of their losing their billets. "If they have done right," he said, "they can't lose their billets'," — a sentiment that evoked loud, ecornful laughter. After further speech, the Speaker twice pjjlled up Mr. Major for attempting to quote from a previous debate. In the courso of further remarks, Mr. Maiov suggested that the Civil Servants Who had given affidavits were probably meh whonad something to gammen who were inspired by vindictiveness. He dedafed that the New Liberals had got themselves into an unfortunate position." They had only one thing to do — tb bo honourable and be done with it — and they did not do it. Mr. W. Fraser complained that speaker a her speaker had got up and addressed himself to the motion" as if it were a. motion for enquiry. It was not a motion for enquiry at all. His position was that he did nob like vogue charges of any kind, and would not be a party to having the papers laid on the table without knowing more about it. If the member for Wellington went about the matter in a propef Way, he (Mr. Eraser) would be the 1 first to support him. Mr. Millar said that the House was practically asked to say> that the officers of the Treasury and Defence Departments had wilfully appended their names to documents containing false statements. He asked why Mr. Fisher could not obtain the number of th'o alleged voucher from the source which gave him the num.i bet of the" Seddon voucher. He was op poSed to tile motion, and wfts opposed to the proposal to grant ah indemnity. Public opinion would see that no man would conic £o harm for acting in the public goon. The House did not Want to know whether Mr. Fisher was justified in making his charges, but whether those charges \\ere true. , Mr. Fisher : tiive us^ an opportunity. To this Mrj Millar said the member for Wellington should give the number and dther particulars of voucher, and ho (Mr. Millar) would walk into the lobby behind bin! On a motion fotf enquiry. The Commissioner of Customs complained that Mf. Fisher had not apologised to Captain Seddon for having failed to subbtantiate the charge against him, and that he now desired to cast a slur On those who had refuted the charge. . Not a single charge mado had been proved. Mr. Moss : What about the Mapourika expenses! (Laughter.) Tlje Minister .Went on to complain of the time of the House being wasted in this way. Mr. Herriea: Who is wasting time now? (Renewed laughter.) The Minister refinanced, that the party Which had made these Charges had already lost their political reputation over the matter*. Mi 1 , HaWkins: Some people never had any to lose. (More laughter.) '^ The Minister went on to repeat the argumento against the action of the NeW Liberal Party which h£d been made by previous speakers. Mr. Duthie said he did not know of any precdent , for the t eqtiest ' that an indemnity should be granted to Civil Servants who came forward.. Such witnesses, if they were 'honest, would be protected by pitblio opinion and the 1 honour of the House, and if they had trumped up a charge they had no right to an indemnity. On the other hand, four members of the House had seen the affidavits containing the charge, and the matter Could nob be allowed to rest. (Hear, hettr.) The charge was -of a most grave order, and the honour of the House demanded that it should be investigated. The Premier: Don't you think we ought to hate something specific? Mr. Duthie said the charge was sufficiently specific, and he hoped the Premier would give full opportunity for enquiry. If the New Liberal Party had brought trumped-up charges they ought to go out of public life. Mr. R. M'Kenzio urged that there was nothing of a specific nature bofore the House. Did they «ay that the payment was made fraudulently or illegally? If they made a specific charge the House would support) the demand {ot enquiry. Mr. Moss said this wftft & simple question: Should trustees fear an enquiry into the Way they handle money entrusted to them? Had the Gotornmenb any reason to fear nn enquiry? Why so much mystery if there was nothing to fear? Mr. Fisher ro3O to reply at 4.30 p.m. He did; not, he said) want to suggest a fraudulent payment, bub a payment was made, aud thoy wdnted to know what it was for. If* particulars' were refused thero must be something wrong about it. As to the charge, the makers of the affidavits swore that thoy hud handled the voucher making payment to Captain Seddon of between £70 and £180 last year. If Uie Premier and the Treasury officials were not aworo of the voucher there was a bigger swindle going on than had at present been disclosed. • If the Premier . had nothing to fear, let him grant {in, enquiry before a Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. That was the only refutation the public would accept. Tho people who made the affidavits felt that when they saw an improper payment being made it was their duty- to: Bstek otttr At- preoentj 3ww-

ever, it was dangerous for a Civil Servant to tell the truth, and that was why they asked for an indemnity. He waa hopeful, however, that he would be able in a few days to give their evidence without an indemnity. H© knew where the payment was made, but he did not know why it was made,, and that was why he wanted an enquiry. He had no wish to do the Premier or Captain Seddon an injustice, but he was doing what he believed to be his duty. Having the sworn affidavits of three Civil Servants, he wa» bound to bring the matter op. They were absolutely certain that there could be no 'confounding Sheddon's voucher with Seddon's voucher, and until it was disproved he should continue to believe that the voucher for Captain Seddon existed and was being covered up. So long as he thought ha was right he should not give way, in spite of public opinion or of the opinion of the House. It was not fair to ask departmental officers to report on such a matter. No one would expect a departmental officer to make a report adverse to the Government. (Oh! oh!) If he was proved to be wrong he would make all the reparation possible, but he would not do that unless an enquiry was held. If he did not succeed on this occasion he would not let the matter drop, but he urged that it was the duty of the Premier when such a grave charge was made to afford the fullest opportunity for 6dquiry. Mr. Fisher's motion that leave be given to lay the paper on the table was lost at 4.55 p.m. by 46 votes to 21. The Premier then rose and remarked that during the course of the debate a term had been applied to an officer of the Treasury, the Postmaster at Christchurch, and the Under-Secretary for Defence. Mr. Taylor- raised the point of order that the Premier was not entitled to speak,, the debate having closed. The Premier, however, was allowed ,to go on by the Speaker. There was in the colony, he said, an Auditor and Controller General, and that term 'having been applied, that officer and his Department were impugned. The Leader of the Opposition: What was the term? The- Premier: "Swindle." When that had occurred it would be for the Auditor and Controller General to take a course which he (the Premier) hoped would be taken, "and then, we will See what will be the position of these Civil Servants and those members." Mr. Taylor : All bluff. The Premier (angrily): Oh, is it! That closed the voucher incident for the day. Ayes (for Mr. Fisher) — Messrs. Aitken, Alison, Bedford, Buchanan, Duthie, Fisher, Harding, Hardy, Hawkins, Herdman, Herries, . Kirkbride, Lang, Lailrenson, Mander, Ma&ey, T. Mac j kenzie, Moss, Rlfcdes, Taylor, Vile. Noes (against Mr. Fisher) — Messrs. E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barber, Baume, Bennet, Buddb, Oarroll, Colvin, Davoy, Duncan, Ell, Field, Flatman, Fowlds, W. Fraser, Hall, Hall-Jpnes, Hanan, Seke, Hogg, Houston, Jennings, Lawry, Lethbridge, Lewis, Major, M'Gowan, R. Miicnzie, M'Lachlnn, M'Nftb, Millar, Mills, Pere, Remington, Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey, Smith', Steward, Symes, Tanner, J. C. Thomson, J. W. Thomson, Willis, Witty, Wood. Pairs.— For : J, Allen. Against ; Ward.