WHY MB FISHER RESIGNED.

Evening Star, Issue 7877, 9 April 1889, Page 4

WHY MB FISHER RESIGNED.

On the Ist of April—a very suitable date for such a proceeding—the Premier wrote to Mr Fisher informing him, with the usual professions of pain and regret, that the Government had decided that they could not justify in Parliament his action as Commissioner of Customs in regard to certain excise prosecutions in Wellington, and that it was therefore desirable that ho should resign. The prosecutions referred to are those against several brewers under the Beer Duty Act—two of which have been decided, and some of which are still pending. The facts connected with them, so far as the action of the late Commissioner of Customs is concerned, were briefly these : On returning to the colony in December last, after visiting Victoria, Mr Fisher was informed that a prosecution had during his absence been initiated against a certain brewer, who for obvious reasons we will simply distinguish as C, and ho was asked by wire to stop proceedings until he arrived in Wellington. Ho was willing to do this, but on communicating by telegraph with the department, and finding that the Hon. Mr Uislop, who was acting as Commissioner in his absence, thought otherwise, lie at once assented to the case being proceeded with. On resuming charge of the department himself ho learned from the 'Town Solicitor that not one but several prosecutions were contemplated, but that in one case it was not intended to take action, as it was a very little one. Mr Fisher would not this excuse any more than Mrs Easy was willing to do when it was urged by her son’s wet nurse, and he ordered that if one offender was prosecuted all should be. Subsequently it was decided to first bring two test cases against A and B respectively. These cases were protracted in Court for many weeks, and a conviction was at the end obtained against A, while the case against B failed. It was evident that the law was rather uncertain. In the meantime C addressed the Commissioner, stating that he did not wish to take advantage of any technical defence, and that if the department was satisfied that an offence had been committed he would place himself unreservedly in the Commissioner’s hands and submit to any fine which the Commissioner might deem just or which any Court could inflict if a conviction was obtained. Mr Fisher referred this letter to the permanent head of the department, and learned in reply that it had been customary to deal with defaulters in duty by accepting the payment evaded. In ona case in September last one brewer had been required to pay L 49 5s 4d duty on seventythreehogsheads not duly entered inhis books. There was no prosecution in that case, and the dedsion was como to by the permanent officer without reference to the Minister. Mr Fisher might on this have acted in the case on bis own responsibility, but he did not do so. He waited a few days for the Premier’s return from the Te Kooti campaign, but that being delayed he called a Cabinet meeting for early in the forenoon of the last day on which one of the informations against G could be laid. His colleagues could not attend till late in the afternoon, and then one af them delayed the proceedings until it was too late to lay the , information which Mr Fisher had sent over to the Court to have laid as soon as his colleagues decided that it would be desirable proceedings should be taken. As the brewer G had, however, unreservedly offered to pay the maximum fine if required, and the permanent officer had recommended the acceptance of his offer to avoid the uncertainty of law proceedings, we fail to see that the effluxion of time in one case cut of several mattered materially. The full penalty of L2OO could still be exacted in regard to the other cases against the same brewer. They are still being proceeded with in accordance with the instructions given by Mr Fisher in deference to the views expressed by his colleagues. In the case already decided against A, the head of the department in reporting on a petition for mitigation of the maximum penalty recommended that the fine should be reduced from L2OO to LIOO, and Mr Fisher, concurred in tins, but finding that his colleagues did not, lie again waived his opinions and acted on those of the Cabinet. These arc the plain facts of the case, and they establish two points. First, that Mr Fisher so far from thwarting the permanent officers in their desire to protect the revenue, throughout accepted their advice, and would have acted on it had it not been overruled by the interference of his colleagues, to whose opinion, however, he cheerfully yielded when it was expressed even in a most unusual manner. Under these circumstances, as Mr Fisher had throughout given effect to the decisions and wishes of the Cabinet, it is difficult to understand what the Premier can have meant in saying that the Cabinet could not support him in Parliament in that action. Parliament could not, if Ministers kept their own counsel, have been informed of what the Commissioner and permanent officers have proposed to do. It would only have known what had been done, and that was what the majority (not Mr Fisher) had decided upon. He would, of course, have had to support that action in Parliament, even though he personally did not approve of it. To put forward his action in regard to these Customs prosecutions as a reason for demanding his resignation was therefore a very shallow pretence. There were other reasons behind. The Cabinet has not for a long time past been a happy family. Personal disagreements between its members have been of very frequent occurrence, apart altogether from Mr Fisher, who, as a Minister, has, we believe, shown a commendable desire to restrain his naturally hasty temper. He hasbeen a party to very few, if any, of the personal altercations which have taken place, but on a variety of public questions he has very openly and decidedly differed with the Premier’s policy, and has tided with what may bo termed the Opposition section of the Cabinet. Probably the Premier thought that if Mr Fisher could be got rid of the other members could be more easily manipulated. It is well known that Mr Fisher strongly disapproved of the Premier’s action in the Te Kooti matter, in the selection of a successor to the late Mr Justice Johnston, in the constitution of the Railway Board, in regard to the appointment of engineor-in-chief, as to the necessity for a material alteration in the property tax, as to the Premier’s views on land nationalisation, as to the proposed amendment of the Charitable Aid Act by the establishment of pauper farms, as to the leasing of the Canterbury runs, and as to the proposed diversion of the North Island Trunk Railway from the central to a Taranaki route. The presence of a Wellington member in the Cabinet was naturally enough specially obnoxious to the Premier in view of his well-known intentions in regard to this question of the railway route. Sir Harry Atkinson is not the man to patiently brook firm and decided opposition to his will on the part of anyone who is in his power, hence no doubt the first possible pretext was seined on to force Mr Fisher’s retirement. Of course it may be asked why, differing on so many and serious points of policy, Mr Fisher did not retire of his own accord. The answer is simple. There were other and still larger questions of policy on which lie did agree with his colleagues. There was an Education Bill, to the preparation of which he had given much time and attention, and as long as it was at all possible to continue to work in harmony with his colleagues for the good of the colony it was his duty to waive minor or personal considerations. —‘ Evening Post.’