MR. FISHER'S CHARGES.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 36, 11 August 1905, Page 2

MR. FISHER'S CHARGES.

THE AUDITOR-GENERAL TO REPORT. THE PREMIER'S INDIGNATION. MR. TAYLOR HAS TO WITHDRAW. ' The development of the Captain Seddon voucher incident occupied the attention of the House until £ .o'clock yesterday afternoon. The main -features of the debate were indicated in our columns yesterday, and' when our report closed the House was debating a motion by the Premier that the Auditor-General be directed to hold an enquiry into all the payments made to Captain Seddon during his period of service in the Defence Department. ' * Mr. Lewis, who continued the debate, could not understand the anxiety of Mr. Taylor to assert that .Mr. Fisher had been completely exonerated. He thought the statement was somewhat premature. As .to the Auditor-General, na doubt his .actions had) been criticised, but in spite of that he had not modified his attitude, and appeared to be as independent as ever. His past conduct showed that he would not be influenced in his enquiry towards the Premier's son. It would be in the power of the Auditor-General to call Mr. Fisher, and if he did nob call him the enquiry would not be complete. Mr. .Duthie- spoke in terms -of high praise of the integrity and abi'.ity of the three officials who had signed the petition. This, however, was a subsidiary matter. Such an enquiry as proposed would not bring out all the facts that ought to be placed before the public. He objected to the petitioners naming the Judge who was to make the investigation. It should be left to the House to choose the tribunal in such a grave matter. This was <i matter that should be enquired into by a Parliamentary Committee, which would have fuller scope and greater opportunities for arriving at the truth. Nothing else would give satisfaction. Th« : I don't think there will be much necessity for anything, else after ■ we get the Auditor-General's report. Mr, R. M'Kenzie was of opinion that there would be a fair and impartial enquiry made into the matter. He would like the evidence taken at the enquiry to be available to members of the House. Mr. W. Fwser. You would not elicit full information if that was done. - Mr. R. M'Kenzie: Why so? Why should such protection be needed except it is to protect some scoundrel or other in the Civil Service? Mr. Fisher, as a personal explanation, controverted an assertion by Mr. R. M'Kenzie that Mr. Fisher was not satisfied with the Auditor.Genera) as a tribunal. "I am exceedingly sorry," said Mr. Fisher, "that the member for Motueka.misunderstood my position. I can provide him with argument, but I can't provide him with intelligence. lam perfectly (satisfied for the Auditor-General to hold the enquiry, but I say that I should be allowed to be present and that it should be open to the press and the public." .... Messrs. Jennings and Wilford both expressed satisfactfmi at the appointment of the Auditor-General and confidence in his -integrity and impartiality. . Mr. .Bedford expressed a similar conviction, buU said it was most unusual that the member who made the ctiarge Bhouid not be given the opportunity of appearing before the tribunal and watching the proceedings. Mr. Baume did not believe the proposed enquiry would finish the trouble. Whether enquiry .took place before a Parliamentary Committee or a Judge of the ' Supreme Court, or the AuditorGeneral as proposed, the last would 1 not ' have- been- heard of these charges that c had been made against the Premier. Mr. Baume was going on to refer to' some remarks made by Mr. Fisher about Mr. Mark Cohen, of the Dunedin Star, but was pulled up by Mr. Speaker; on the ground that the reference was irrelevant to the question now under discussion. Mr. Baume went. on to castigate Mr. Fisher for having made reference to any person's nationality, and ended by a fierce declamation against the "Jew-baiting" , tactics displayed by the member for Wellington. " " '■ After further debate Mr. Buchanan i expressed satisfaction at the fact that - an enquiry was to be held, and moved j as an amendment that the investigation should be into "all payments" during Captain Seddon'e term of office in the i Public Service. That, he urged, more effectively covered the ground of the enquiry. The amendment was rejected by 43 to 23, , The Premier. then replied to the debate. The amendment, be said, would have done a grave injustice to Captain ] Seddon, and Mr. .. Buchanan had been made the instrument to ask that the Auditor-General should enquire into every payment made to ' Captain Seddon while he was in; South" Africa. He did not understand why there should be this persecution. Did,. they not understand that his son was on tho fringe of life, and yet he was not to have the fair play that the poorest might expect? When the Auditor-General reported there would be a clearing-up of this mystery, but it was hoped that if the South African payments had been included something against- .Captain Seddon would have been found. For his own part he had tried to do what was just and right to clear up what he knew was a false charge. If this matter had been referred to a Parliamentary Committee he knew what wonld have happened. Cases had happened in which Parliamentary Committees had got conclusive evidence in a certain direction, and yet one member of the ' Committee would not be persujCdod; He was doing what he hnd had in his mind from the commencement of this matter. There had been a .complete refutation of the or i (final charge, and if Mr. Fisher allowed his better nature to prevail he would 'freely admit it. ■ The Auditor-General's report would, however, once and for nil clear up this matter, but even that would not prevent •members and candidates from suggesting that there was still a p doubt about it. There was a paltry mm of £170 involved, and the motive was to get at tho father, politically, not at 'the son. In doing his duty lie had had to do that which was hurtful to Mr. Fisher, but he would not allow personal feelings to weigh with him in such a matter M thin. Not only the honour of himself and hi* aon, but of the colony, was at stake. If Mr. Fisher had come to him he wonld have' made nil enquiries, and all this trouble would have been avoided. As to the affidavits, he nsked did they contain only reference to Captain Seddon? Would Mr. Fisher say there was nothing else? Mr. Fisher rose to apeak. The Premier : I'll call on you when I hay« finished. > ■Mr. Fish«r : You won't get it now. The Premier said he assumed there was something else. This, 'he supposed, waa callea a British way of dealing with a queitipn like, thiti *»d Jk rao»rk«d

that the action of Mr. 'Fisher was actuated merely by ,» desjre to justify the •existence of the party that he had joined. They were going to prove the impurity of the Administration by these charges, which were based on incorrect information. If a, party was to be justified by vilification of public officers and .the Ministry of it-he day, then perish ouch a pa>ty •' 'Mr. Taylor iiied\ to # inflame 'tha^Audite-r^General against _ Wm ' (the Premier) Vy referring to -what' bad taken plica! inline past. If this matter was g^tng[;befofcr th« Supreme' Court, and Jsu'cTi "a" remark had been made'about the Judges, ihe Supreme. Court would have brought Mr. Taylor before it for contempt. Mr. Seddon also" suggested that Mr. Fisher had threatened these public officers with exposure on the floor of ■the 'House if th-sy did not produce. _th« affidavits which Mr. Fisher nad handed to Mr. Speaker. If public offio&TS.»made statements to members, a n^ those statements wer© brought up before the House, h© wanted to Know what they were coming to? The public service could not b« carried on on those lines. If, under cover jf the privilege of Parliament, public officers and Ministers were to be impugned, there would be an end to the best men seeking positions in public life. In conclusion, the Premier related the checks that take place on payments of public money, and urged that those safeguards Tendered it impossible for any covering lip of payments. Right would prevail, and he wished to exhaust the legitimate means of enquiry. He hoped 'that when tho result was known, Mr. . Fisher would do what he ought to have done the other day when there was complete refutation. If Mr. Fisher had. corns to him he would never have taken a -couns. which had inflamed _ public opinion, and wounded the feelings of innocent men who should never have had that slur cast upon them. 'Mr. Buchanan said the Premier, had stated that he had moved his amendment with a view to enquiry as to ■the payments mad© to Captain Seddon while •he was in South Africa. " I deny that," said Mr.' Buchanan, with evident WaTmth of feeling. '"How daTe he accuse me of motives that never entered > into my head V H« had not been assailing either the Pwanier or those connected with I him, / .and ho asked -the Premier to withdraw' the imputation' he had cast upon 1 him. He said again emphatically that h* fond , no motiv© of the king suggested, it did ne-fc occur to him in any ■ way whatever. The Premier said he "was sme Mr. Buchanan never intended by his amendment that the enquiry should includa South African payments, However, he could not judge motives, he could only judge by the fact, and the enquiry would by that amendment have been so widened, whether Mr. Buchanan wanted it or not. He exonerated^ 'Mr. Buchanan, who, he believed, would be the last to do an injustice to him or his, but tho amendment would have done an injustice. Mr. Buchanan: I never intended it. ! •Mr. Fisher, in the ■course of a personal explanation, said foe had done 1 ■what he had done from a sense of public duty. He said unhesitatingly that ho placed the greatest faith in the affidavits he had brought under th<» notice of the House ; he still thought he tflad done his' duty as a member ol the House, and he was not .going to alter his mind until, the report of the enquiry had been put before tho -House. He ueaured ihe Pre-. mier that he was not governed in this matter by personal feelings. As to the l matter to which the Premier had made; reference, he had made up his mind; that it was to be- left out of the~House' altogether. He was not governed hyj personal feelings in any respect wh*t-> ever. The Premier had also suggested'" that he had forced tho. affida vita fTomi those ' n\en , by' fear of. exposure.. The' affidavits wer« Voluntary ; . they were 1 ] given with a ftee- )will/ absolutely, and* it was incorrect «to say they, r w©rV;foroed froni these men by a. threat "oi exposure.' Then, in regard to how many, matters the 'affidavits dealt with, "the sealed' packet would not be> opened until it went before the Auditor-General, and /then it would he found that the affidavite dealt solely with the payment to' Captain Seddon. The Premier: The hon. member does not deny that he went to these officers after he left Wellington. Mr. Fisher : You can't draw me. The Premier: That'a quite sufficient. I know now that you did it. N Mr. Taylor: Who told you? . Tho Premier went on to remark that he did not say that Mr. Fisher had threatened those officers', but he relied upon what had occurred — that after the Sneddon voucher had been discovered Mr. Fioher s&wthose officers, told them what had happened, asked them they still believed the-re was another roucner than th« • Sneddon voucher, »nd they gave him their reply. -Mr. Taylor also made a personal explanation. He had in his possession, he ssidV a duplicate set of -the affidavits from tho same officers, who, instead of being threatened, as th« Premier a U g. g«stfd, and forcedto give them for their own -protection owing to a threat by Mr. Fisher, gave, them to him eagerly, in what they believed to be the public interest, and thoy declared -their belief that every word in the affidavits was true. Tho suggestion that they gave it because they were threatened with exposure was unfair and inaccurate, if the expression was "arliamentary he -would sajr that it was untruthful. Tho last '■wiark brought the Premier to his feet, and with some -heat he asked that tho words be taken down. Subsiding somewhat, ha said -that if that aorfc of -thing was repeated he (should move that the words b© 'taken down, and that the offending .member -be called on, to apologise. The expression wao -ruled 'by Mr. Speaker to be unparliamentary, and Mr, Taylor thereupon withdrew it. The motion to set tip tho committee was then put -to the House and carried on the voices. ,