PERSONAL RECRIMINATION.

Evening Star, Issue 7233, 8 June 1887, Page 2

PERSONAL RECRIMINATION.

[From Olir Parliamentary Kkhoßl'bn.] , WELLINGTON, June 7. The prqceediijgs ih the House this afternoon were enlivened by a very warm discussion between the Treasurer and Mr Ormond, arising out of the personal explanation made by the the former respecting his appointment as a member of the Select Committee which sat last session on the Government Insurance matter. Fortunately the firmness of the Speaker in seeing that the forms of the House are strictly observed ‘prevents that indulgence in Unparliamentary language which characterises the proceedings of some of the other colonial Parliaments, While neither Sir J. Vogel nor the member for Napier this afternoon dared to give the other the lie direct, there was some uncommonly close sailing to that point, dnd the retort CollrteouS was Certainly given. The breeze lasted during the greater part of an hour, and the opinion among members was that Sir (J. Vogel get tho worst of it, and that he was impolitic in bringing up the matter. In order that my readers may judge for themselves as to the merits of the dispute, I, send you a tolerably full report of the discussion.. The Treasurer having pro forma moved the adjournment of the House, made a personal explanation. He said On a former occasion lie had intittlated his (intention of replying to remarks Mr Ormond had made about him. Mr Ormond had said in Napier substantially what ho {the speaker) was about now to complain of. He took exception to the statement then, arid intended, had he been in better health, to have gone to Napier and taken the lion, member to task there. HoweVer, the hon. member had given him an opportunity of dealing with the matter in the House by repeating tho statement. The hon. gentleman said, in effect, that he (Mr Ormond) had submitted tho names of the Committee he moved for in connection with tho Government Insurance Association to tho chairman of the Association, namely, the Colonial Treasurer, who, met him by saying: “I must be on that Committee; the Prime Minister must be there also.” The hon. gentleman said he (Mr Ormond) replied “ Rut we are going to try you and went on to say “ I am glad to say that the Prime Minister himself at price saw the inconsistency of such a proposal, and declined to have anything to do with it.” Sir Julius Vogel went on to say that he gave as emphatic a contradiction to these statements as the forms of the House would allow. Mr Ormond’s statements were wholly and absolutely incorrect. He would state what happened. Some hon. member (he believed it was Mr Ormond himself) came to him during the progress of tho business in the House and asked whether he would approve of the names of a committee which he had selected to inquire into the administration of the Government Insurance Association. He (the Treasurer) pointed out that there were one or two gentlemen named on the Committee who were notoriously bitter opponents of his ; and he said further that, as the Association was under his control, why had he not been asked to sit upon the committee. The reply was : “Oh, if you go upon it we shall have to take Fisher, and we don’t want that ” (shrugging his shoulders). He (the Treasurer) then suggested the Premier, who said : “I cannot go on because I am a director of another insurance association.” That Was exactly what took place. The hon. member then took off the names objected to, and the Committee was formed. Was it likely that he (Sir J. Vogel) would let the hon. member come and tell him that “ they were going to try him ?” If the hon. member had had that idea he had acted scandalously, for what was the course of that Committee ? If ho was on his trial before a jury would it not have been right that the accusations against him should first have been made? Immediately after Mr Luckie had been examined he (the Treasurer) was called. Sir Julius detailed the course pursued by the Committee in calling evidence, and said that it was with considerable difficulty that he persuaded the hon. member to allow the other members of the Board to reply after Messrs Shannon and Fisher, to statements which reflected upon themselves and himself, and that he might be allowed to make a written statement. All he could say was that if he were on his trial the hon. member for Napier had acted in the matter in a scandalous manner—in such a way as to show triat he would not be fit to try a dog, let alone a man. A few days after the Commitite sat Mr Douglas M'Lean, of Hawke’s Bay, sent him down a copy of a column of matter which appeared in one cf the newspapers said to belong to or to be controlled by the hon. member for Napier. That was written by a correspondent from Hastings, which town was part of the Heretaunga block, and the grievance was that the Insurance Department had not considered it necessary to lend a large sum to the town because legal proceedings were current as to the title of that block. The article suggested chat the Insurance Association should be boycotted, and he did not know what else, in consequence of this awful outrage. When he read this paper he went to Captain Russell, tho member for Hawke’s Bay, whom everyone knew they could trust as a gentleman, and said it was an extraordinary thing that Mr Ormond was saturated with ideas of this kind, and asked him whether, since the hon. member had moved for acominittectomakcanimpartialinvestigation into the Government Insurance Association, lie thought that he could trust him to conduct it impartially, or was it worth his while to bring the matter before the House. Captain Russell said “I think you can trust him.” The Treasurer said ho would further say in conclusion that before Mr Ormond indulged in that system of accusation and the mud-throwing that ho was so fond of he would do well to remember that in the pages of ‘ Hansard ’ there were distinct charges against him which he would not meet, but backed out of the House when they were Spoken of—that he had abused his public position for his own private ends; and that he had bettor, before he did any further mud-throwing, try to clear himself. The Premier corroborated the Treasurer’s statement so far as concerned Mr Ormond submitting tho names to him. Mr Ormond said he believed he went by invitation to submit the names, and, though ho did not remember the names, he believed the gentlemen he named were impartial and had no personal feeling against the Treasurer. He certainly told the Treasurer that they were going to try him. The Treasurer asked Mr Tole whether he would be on the Committee, and Mr Tole did not refuse. He (Mr Ormond) did not make any mention of Mr Fisher, though he believed that that gentleman was on the original Committee. Having great respect for that gentleman, he would be the last person to treat him with the indignity Sir J. Vogel had stated. Ho repeated that he had told the Treasurer that it would be improper for him to be on the Committee, because they were going to try him as Treasurer. The statement that he did not get reasonable opportunities to state his case was a reflection on the other members of the Committee. He challenged the members of the Committee to say whether he did anything improper, or failed to give the Treasurer every opportunity to make good his case. The Treasurer wished to make a Huai statement, and in the end the Committee agreed to that course. As to the newspapers which the hon. gentleman said belonged to him, or were under his control, that statement was as incorrect as any statement could be. He had no interest in any newspaper in the country, and had never exercised the smallest control, or attempted to, over any newspaper in the Colony. He repudiated the statement as absolutely contrary to fact. He neversawthe article in question, The hon. gentleman’s statement with reference to the charges made agaiusthim (Mr Ormond) was absolutely and totally untrue. A much stronger term should be used. He defied Sir J. Vogel to prove that he ever abused his public position, and ho wished the hon. gentleman had tho same record. The hon. gentleman was not one who could stand up in the House and say that he was in that position. Considering what ho did say in his speech at Napier, the matter mentioned was a very small one. The Treasurer, however, did not refer to the other allegations made in that speech, nor refer to tho statement that the Government was not one that could show an untainted record. 'He (Mr Ormond) put on record there the judgment of the House with regard to T the hon. gentleman’s conduct. What was the finding of the House with jespect to the district railways? The money was wrongly given away by the sanction and connivance of the Treasurer, and that the House unanimously regretted the transaction referred to as calculated to seriously affect and impugn tho integrity of any hon. gentleman connected therewith, and that it was calculated to give rise to scandals. No one could point to him (Mr Ormond) as having been guilty of such conduct as that,

formed him, at the time tliat he had told the Treasurer that.they going to try him. The replying, said he believed bon. members who had known him for years Would believe that ho Was Utterly Incapable of telling an untruth to the House. He reiterated, the statement with reference to the Committee, and asked bon. members as a favor to read the evidence and say whether he was treated in anyway as a person on Ins trial*, The charges made against Mr Ormond Were not mty.de by him, and they were that the member for Napier had used his public position to avoid paying rent, and, moreover, to get cheap land. As to the piirchase of the district railway debentures, the Treasurer said he had been unfairly treated by the Committee tha,t sat on tjiat question, Inasmuch as he had not been allowed to, know the evidence before the Comnjittee, so that bo could reply to it. When he gave his evidence he was not aware of the existence of the letter subsequently, produced. He pointed out that members had private business of their own which they attended to in Wellington, and some ,of them would not come to Wellington otherwise. He claimed that in this instance he, had acted in , the interests oi the country when he boitght the debentures. He accused Mr Ormond qf making statements against him which could only proceed from a malignant and vindictive mind. He had been asked why it Was that the member for Napier had persecuted him as he hud done for the last three years. It had been suggested that it was because the hon. gentleman was aggrieved that he, was not sent for when this Parliament first met. When he (the Treasurer) formed a Government he was asked by some of Mr Ormond’s friends whether Mr Ormond could bo Premier, and he said “ Certainly not.” The matter then dropped.