THE Marlborough Express. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1884. THE DRILL SHED QUESTION.

Marlborough Express, Volume XX, Issue 166, 18 July 1884, Page 2

THE Marlborough Express. Published Every Evening. FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1884. THE DRILL SHED QUESTION.

4 The question which has been raised by Mr Dodson'B challenge to Mr Seymour m regard to tho nuppnaed rote for a drillshed appears to Vi not only a m,itt« vrhioh affects the personal ver»city of j;he patties, but one whioh raises a publio question of deep interest. The history of

■;h-3 matter, l-ritily tohl, appears to both; ■-. iDiirins Hie eicotio:; of 1881, Jlr Beymou , spsskii-'c at Blenheim on las :21st Nov , mid th'.t lie iiml got the volunteer* L3C) for a nviU-thed, and a sit.-, v-hich woul-.l bo shortly handed over to .hem. On the :38tli Nov., ?.t Marlboroughiov.n, aud ca jli2 DOth Nov., at Gi'ovutoun, ho repeated f.his atfttament. And, no doubt at Mr | 3.>yiEMr's irnipirailou, tho Timc-.i, on the ! .sth Deo., went ?o far an to Rive the dhnen- ,! .lions oi tha drill-nhed, aad to add thr.t i tendoru would be Ci'Ucil shortly for its erection. These statements of Mr Soy. mour's were distinctly uhollenged by Air jDjdson at the time. Speaking at Ren■Tick, he said, " Mr Seymour had claimed oredit for obtaining £303 ior a drill-shed sit Blenheim and land to bui'.d it upon, Ho had moat carefully gone through the appropriations for tho yea*, but found no i!uoh yote. He saw votes for drill-sheds m other places, and last year Picton obtained £300 for the aarne purpose." M>: Dodson hold up the appropriations and ;l asked Mr Seymour to point out tho vote, or tell him whero to find it. As it was not there, lie might- be told it was under the head of contingencies. .He would accept no such answer. It was not a con-, tingeney, if for a definite purpose, and it was not even there." To this appeal Mr Seymour made no reply, nor did that gentleman then or afterwards afford pny explanation. Mr Dodson was returned, aid went to Parliament with the honest endeavor to obtain for the district the : fulfilment of what he could only suppose was some kind of promise on the part of ■ the Government to giro £300 for a cHllshed. But Mr Dodson found on personal enquiry of Mr Bryoe and other Ministers, and after careful search through the ; Esti-naios m all their stages, that no such sum had ever been voted, nd that ! no promise of that or. any other amount for a drill shed had been made to Mr Seymour. Whilst Mr Dodson was away at Wellington he was charged by the Seymour party with losing this L3OO vote by Hs neglect, and on his return from hia first session, when epea l ing at Ewart's HaU, Mr Dodaon thus referred to the subject : " There is one vote I was ar : d to have missed and been the means of losing, by one of the "Los" tribe, namely, the L3OO for the drill shed. We all heatd pcev'ous to the last session that this «urn had been voted, and that Mr Dousl'n was employed to make plans. At the time I searched the estimates m vain for f he vote, and when I went to Wellington had a further look, thinking it had been on tho estimates or brought down to the House, but struck out m the passing. I could neither find nor hear anything of it. It had never been put on the estimates, and never asked for." It may bo mentioned 1 , m passing, that Mr Dodson made the statement just quoted mainly on the authority of Mr Bryce, who gave to Mr Seymour's assertion a distinct and emphatic denip' m the strongest terms. Yef, aven after this pnblio statement made by Mr Dodson on his return from Wellington, neither Mr Seymour nor any of hia friends' afforded the slightest explanation upon the r matter. Nothing more has been publioly heard of tha supposed vote for a drill shed from that day to this. We have Mr Dodaori's authority for saying that he looked into the question, not to find that Mr Seymour had told an untruth, but to find the money and get it for the district. Mr Bryee was perfectly willing to pay over the money if it could have been shown that it had m any way been promised ; but all efforts failed to prove that that was so, egpecia^y as Mr Seymour declined to throw any light on the subject. Mr Dodson could therefore do no more. It was both astounding impudence and ridiculous npnsense on the part of Mr, Seymour's friends to blame Mr Dodson for neglect to do that which Mr Seymour had by his own conduct rendered impossible. But, looking at the matter from any point of view, what can be said of a man or a party that, m order to spite an opponent, would rob a district of a useful vote ? The tactics of Mr Seymour and his following' were not those of political honesty, but their policy was the invariable mode of warfare adopted by the bad old ruling clique— to embarrass an opponent at all hazards, even if- the district was injured by so doing. It is not therefore an idle boast or triumph, or as a gambling bet, that Mr Dodson has challenged Mr Seymour to make good his assertion. The untruthful, unmanly, and misleading policy whiohthe clique pursued then they are again indulging m now, and MrDodapn deserves the thanks of every lover of truth and justice for having forced Mr Seymour into a corner from which he will find there is no escape. Mr Seymour's statements and "documentary evidence" produced at the nomination are valueless. They are either utterly beside tl^e matter, or, when carefully looked into, show the weal'iess of Mr Seymour's position more plainly than ever. He told the electors on Wechesday that m the Appendix- to the Journals for 1881 would be found the vote for a drill shed.' We willingly give 'Mr Seymqur<jred ; t for speaking m good faith, but, unfortunately for himself and the distilct, his statement is utterly groundless. In the Appendix to the Journals for 1881-2, under the head " Miscellaneous Services" (Defence Department) there is no doubt the item " Subsidies m aid of the erection drill sheds, £300." But there is immediately after it a' specific vote of £100 for a drill shed at ■ Hamilton, showing incontestably that had tho L3G3 been intended for Blenheim it would have been hnecifioally voted. There is.no vote for the Blenheim Drill Shed that year, and it appears to be the first year m which a general vote for drill sheds made its appearance. In the next yeat (1882-3) LIOO3 was votod as a " Subsidy m aid o£ the erection of Volunteer Drill Sheds," but again there is no mention of a grant for Blenheim. Nor is suoH a thing to be found m tha appropriations hi any other yar, though m 1879-80 L3CI wrs voted for a Drill Shed at Pioton. In 1880-81 there ;< 5 no vote. for any Drill Shed whaterer. But it is noir said that the L3OO voted m 1881 as " Subsidies m B : d of the creation of Drill Sheds," wai really intended for Blenheim, »nd th»t it was arranged between Mr Seymour and the Government that it should appear m the appropriation as " m aid of tbo erection of Drill Sheds," so as to avoid opposition from other members of the House. If this is the fact, which m tho face of Mr Bryce's denial no one can beliere, it represents tho Government as having been parties to a remarkably queer transaction — almost as pecu'iar as tho,arrangement by which Mr Soymour, .to-, the j scandal of tho whole Colony, was allowed •to draw his salary as Chairman of Com.mittoes six months after he ceased to bo ;a momber of the Houao. But tbo oxplajnation of tho L3OO vote ia too absurd to bo credited, for. moment. Were it true— 'the quostion must at phco be askel — why did not tho Volunteers obtain tho money ? Thoro has beon flaunted before the public, gaze a Toucher applying for £300, signed by Captain Robinson and 'countersigned by Major Baillio, and dated six months after Mr Beymonr was ohallenged to give an explanation of tho vote. This so-c»llod voucher m itself proves nothing ; it waa a mere claim for money, probably out of any sum the Government might place that year on tho Estimates to meet demands for drill sheds. That it was not regardod as an application for a spooific vote is to be seen from the fact that Colonel Reader returned the vouoher with a memo stating certain terms upon whioh a grant oould be obtained, . It

does not appear why. Captain Robinson did not porsevero wish his application, or why the terms were net complied with. vVe have heard it said that, as it was found that the Government would uol: f,dve thu Blenheim lUflea a title to a soolion of Iruu, v, hiuh would have enabled i;htm to moHy;i«u it, and thereby niss money so bnil.l the .Shed, the application i'oi ,\ grant os_ mono; was not perscTc.cd ■ffttli. vVe will aok aiy ur-ua man whether, if ill Seymour is co rect. and if a posiiivo npf.c.iiio vote of .ESC J w.iu made m 1881 ::cr t ic Blenheim IXUI Shed, the matter, no h S3 Ciptain Bobinsnn aud the Killen ■wo ■■ vjcerjioS, wmlil hare ended v/l'cro ltd. 7t U peifcitly ovi-lcnt that ttia :no:. .„• wai.at'.ther voted mr prmniastl and vlr Sayir.our And hia frtands have been using the coincidence m amounO between- the £300: voted for drill sheds generally and tho £300 they allegod that Mr Soymour obtained for Blenheim us a means of throwing d«9t m tbo oyes of the public. But theso taotioß.will do no longer, and Mr Seymonr bas been so .pinned by MY ,Dod3On to positivo proof that the matter will at laat be cleared up enco for all. Enforced tjeneroaity, public or private, is not .a pleasant piece of experience, but Mr Seymour or hin friends will certainly have to perpetrate an act of reluctant benevolence. They may afterward? repeat it m sackcloth and ashes, but the hospital building Jund will soon ha the richer by £50.