CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PREMIER AND THE AGENT-GENERAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4270, 21 July 1875, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PREMIER AND THE AGENT-GENE-RAL.

[KKOM OUR .SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, Wellington. Tuesday, 5.30 p.m. The immigration correspondence laid upon the table opens with a letter from Mr. Vogel to Dr. Featherston, dated Sth September, iu which ho complains in reference to passagesgranted under the Immigrants Land Act. "It seems that any one about to sail for the colony, and whose passage has been paid, has had only to send to you a letter asking for a recommendation, in order to induce you to give it, and that you have not generally thought granting the certificate necessary, but that you have given certificates in cases so anomalous that I am at a loss to understand how you could have given them ; for example, a passenger was coming out under engagement to act as engineer in public works service ; but according to his statement he told you, in your office, and it is confirmed by you, that it was right he should receive a certificate under the Act, entitling him to a grant of land. I am glad to say he voluntarily abandoned the certificate on its being pointed out to him how foreign it was to the intention of the Act that he should reccivo land ; and some persons who were very suitable to receive certificates, left England without being made aware that they were refused, and believing they would obtain land on arrival. I have earnestly to ask that you will consider the Immigrants Land Act as a measure of very great importance, and that it is desirable you should consult its spirit and intention as well as its letter. As I havo pointed out to you, you have failed to appreciate either ; but 1 do not doubt that further consideration will induce y»u to give the measure most careful attention in future." On the 15th December Dr. Featherston, in reply, writes : —" I have been led by expostulation so animated and serious, carefully to review and examine all my proceedings in relation to the Act, to re-inform myself as to its purpose and provisions, and to reconsider them in their various bearings, and to apply to their interpretations explanations, suggestions, and instructions conveyed in your several telegrams and despatches referring to tho Act. The purpose of the Act is declared in the preamble to be that persons immigrating to New Zealand at their own cost from the United Kingdom and elsewhere, other than Australasian colonies, should be permitted to acquire land free of cost in proportion to their expenditure in immigration." Judged by this broad and simple expression, the principal intention of tho Legislature in passing tho Act would seem to I have been to assist immigrants by compensating' them with the equivalent of their passage money in land. This somewhat liberal view of scope of Act is strictly sustained by the terms of tho notice concerning it, which in your despatch, 21st Octobor, 1873, you directed me to insert in the public papers and the very terms of which you appended to that despatch. The Agent-General then quotes that notice, and argues as to the intention of the Act, reserving for a future letter his reply to individual cases. These ho replies to on the 22nd December, saying, inter alia :—" The case of Passmore is peculiar, and quite an exceptional one. That gentleman had come homo with letters from the Government recommending him to my good offices in relation to certain inquiries which he was about to institute, and which he hoped might bo beneficial to the railway interests of the colony. He informed me he had paid his own passage home. I assisted him in his enquiries by introductions to leading engineers and railway managers, and when about to return he told me that as he was again paying his own

passage he thought he might fairly claim to be recouped at least part of his expenses by a free grant of land under the Act, and that if I should give him my certificate, it was his intention to have whatever land might be assigned to him cultivated according to its conditions. I thought, under the circumstances, that I might accede to his application, leaving it to the Government on its presentation to decide on his claim to be so entitled. In regard to the only remaining case, which is mentioned in conjunction with that of Passmore, and in respect of which 1 have again to complain that I am not furnished with the names of persons presenting my certificate, the writer of the precise, speaking in his own person, raises an objection to an act done by me in my discretion under the Act as Agent-General, an objection which I must say I regard as simply preposterous. He objects that the holder of my certificate was the father-in-law of the master of the College. The relation of father-in-law is nowhere mentioned in the Act, and nowhere indicated in your despatches, as a relation disqualifying the person who occupies it if he be under CO years of age and have paid the cost of passage and satisfied mo of his desire to settle upon and cultivate land in New Zealand, from being entitled to a free grant of a piece of land. I have little doubt that if I were to raise such a frivolous plea in one of the courts of this city in event of my being called upon to shew cause for not fulfilling my duty under the Act, in case of an emigrant who happened to be father-in-law of any person whatsover in the colony, I could only expect it to be treated with either suspicion of my motives or doubt of my capacity." In replying to this, on the 24th April, Mr. Vogel, writing in London, says :— " You make the utmost of the fact (and it is natural you should do so) that the advertisement of which I complained was attached to one of niy despatches to you. It is quite possible that it was so, and that I stated " I have to suggest that you publish immediately in the papers a notice to the effect of the one appended thereto." That advertisement I afterwards censured, because of its not mentioning that the land grants were conditional. I am willing to allow you all the satisfaction you desire, from the fact that I suggested the advertisement. After dilating at length on the intention and spirit of Government dispatches on the subject, Mr. Vogel continues, *' You have chosen to be very severe and facetious upon a case in the schedule which was referred to as that of a father-in-law of new headmaster of College. You have assumed that the objection to this gentleman was that he was a father-in law, and following the not very novel device of raising a supposititious case, you say the objection to a 'father-in-law' would be considered a ' frivolous plea,' and that ' I should be treated with either suspioion of my motives or doubt of my capacity.' If you will have the goodness to read that paper again you will see that reference to that gentleman being a father-in-law was meant to help in describing who he was, the officer probably not remembering at the moment the name. The supposition that the objection was to the fact of the gentleman being a father-in-law is so preposterous that I cannot understand how you could reconcile it to yourself, and write at such length upon it at all, and that what the officer implies is that this gentleman was no ' suitable emigrant' within the terms of the Act. Probably this is one of many cases in which the applicant intended to go to the colony in any event, and therefore in which we should be giving away land unnecessarily." In reference to the French emigrants, per Queen of the Age, Dr. Featherston writes that some of the persons named applied for assistance to the Societe Francaiss de Bieitfahance, and were accompanied to this office by the secretary of that institution. " Since the receipt of your letter, 1 have made personal enquiries of that gentleman, and 1 find that the persons referred to received pecuniary aid from the society. Mons. Guillot states the men represented themselves to be mechanics, according to the statements in their application papers, and he has no reason for believing they ever followed the profession of ballet dancers." On the 11th September Mr. Atkinson writes advising Kennaway's appointment on the 25th November. Featherston replies in the letter in which he says :—" My letter of August 7th must have informed the Government within a few days after your letter was written that I had appointed Mr. Cashel Hoey to the office of my confidential secretary, and that that gentleman had, before entering on its duties, resigued the office of Emigration Commissioner and member of the Board of Advice of the Agent-General of Victoria, which he had for several years held. I could not have conceived, when I appointed Cashel Hoey to this office, that the principle which the Government itself had so distinctly and emphatically laid down only a year before as to the selection of my secretary being left entirely in my hands should have been, without notice or reference to me, apparently set aside in a manner which places me in a peculiarly painful and embarrassing position towards that gentleman. I have stated ' the principle' which the Government itself laid down as to the appointment of my confidential secretary officer, whose assistance has long since been admitted to be necessary to the proper discharge of my functions. To sustain this statement I quote the following words from a letter of the Colonial Secretary, dated 2nd August, 1873 :—' The Government recognise the propriety of the selection of a person to fill an office of this nature being left entirely in the hands of the officer to whom he is to be attached, and the Government therefore make no objection to your choice of Buller.' These words are extremely distinct and explicit, and I must confess I felt painfufly surprised that in the many communications which I have had with the Premier by telegraph on this very subject, previous to Cashel Hoey's taking office, no intimation whatever was conveyed to me that the Government had any intention of interfering with a discretion so emphatically recognised as belonging to me with respect to this particular appointment. On the 20th February last 1 telegraphed to the Government in the following terms : ' 'Will you sanction salary, £000, for secretary ?' I did not receive any reply until the 2nd of April, when Mr. Vogel telegraphed : ' Authorise temporary employment of secretary, subject to one month's notice, at salary you consider reasonable.' I felt it impossible to offer an appointment to Cashel Hoey, or any gentleman possessing in any sufficient degree qualifications essential to the office, clogged with a condition which in this country is only attached to lower grades of official service. I telegraphed again on the 4th May, and thinking that the mention ef Hoey's name would sufficiently express .the difficulty in which the Premier's previous telegram had placed me, I simply said:—'Sanction asked Hoey's appointment Secretary ? Six hundred salary ?" In this telegram it will be observed there were two questions : first, with reference to the sanction of Hoey as a person to be appointed ; second, as to the amount of salary. I felt, in addition to the reasons I have above given for mentioning his name, that as Cashel Hoey would probably feel himself bound in honour to tender his resignation of offices held under another colony, I ought to remove beforehand any possible doubt as to his appointment not being confirmed by Government. On the Bth of June I received the following reply:—"Government will not sanction more than four hundred pounds for Private Secretary.' The reply was far from satisfactory to me on the subject of salary; but 1 could only understand its silence on principal question as again conveying consent of Government to the appointment of a person of my choice if I could engage his services at a salary stipulated. I informed Hoey accordingly. Next month Buller returned to the colony, and Hoey agreed to tako office Ott terms i which Vogefs last telegram enabled me to offer without any such condition as a month's notice, but at a very inadequate salary of i £400. He forthwith resigned his office in ; connection with the colony ol Victoria, and

hs * du *! s « »y secretary on the Ist of August, io further tion from the colony reached me on the subject until the 29th of September, when, to my extreme astonishment, nearlv five months after I bad brought Hoey's name under the attention of the Government, I received the following telegram : —' Advise : Abstain from employing Hoey. Government sending you excellent officer—act under you over department. He will arrive in February, when Hoey entirely unnecessary.' Mr. Vogel, on the 9th April, from London, replies: «' The principlelaid down in the Colonial Secretary's letter of 2nd August had reference to appointment of a private secretary. You speak of the officer as ' confidental secretary.' If that was the term used, it meant to designate only a private secretary. The Government would still, I believe, be of opinion that you should select the officer. In the subsequent telegrams which you quote the Government understood the reference to be to a private secretary. In one of them, indeed, those words arc expressly used. It seems by your letter that when you telegraphed on the 20th February you had Hoey's appointment in view, but merely asked permission to give £000 for the salary of a secretary. I must express my opinion that it would have been better if 3-ou had stated your intention. I presume you are not unaware of the controversy which Mr. Hoeys appointment to the Victorian agency caused in the colony of Victoria, ihe reply sent you on the 2nd of April was considered by the Cabinet. The condition that the appointment was to be temporary, was unopposed, because the Government thought it probable that extensive alterations would be found desirable in your department, and did not wish that new and permanent engagements wou'.d be made. It was even then thought that if it was decided to provide you with an officer to fill a position analogous to Under-Secre-tary, a Private Secretary might be necessary. The reply io your subsequent telegram about Cashel Hoey was considered by the Government. I may observe that I do not agree with you, that it released you from your previous instructions concerning a month's notice. You complain that the reply said nothing about Hoey. The omission was not accidental. The Government did not wish to recall your freedom to choose your own private secretary, subject to conditions already laid down. I may, however, observe that Ministers did take into consideration whether they should prohibit Hoey's appointment, but came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to do so. The reason why* they were inclined t) stop Hoey's appointment was because they believed that gentleman sought a much more permanent and influential appointment than they were prepared to sanction. In their opinion Hoey's want of knowledge of .New Zealand disqualified him from exercising in the New Zealand agency the powers he exercised in the Victorian agency. I may add that though I do not concur in claims you seem to consider Hoey possesses, I am willing he should continue to hold the position of private secretary until the Government have considered the matter, and on the condition that his position is that of x>rivate secretary, and that he exercise no powers beyond those of a private secretary. It may be, if you think a private secretary is necessary, that the Government will sanction his continuing to hold the office. You will excuse me from committing the Government on that point. With respect to Kennaway's appointment to act under you as head of department, T have only to observe that the Government consider it a necessary appointment." On the 19th November Atkins informed Featherston, in reference to the Land Act, that, "After a most careful consideration, the Government were unable to recognise any claim, except such as those made in accordanae with the provisions of the Act, clauses of which render it necessary that the applicant should apply within CO days of landing in the colony, and produce a certificate under your hand that he is a suitable immigrant. I regret, therefore, that no application forwarded through you can be entertained. " On Feb. 8 Atkinson sent to Featherston letters from Dr. Krittain, of the ship Invererne, and Dr. N esbitt, of the ship Warwick, in which the following passages occur:— Brittain says : "You asked me how I got my appointment as surgeon. First, I went to the New Zealand Emigration Office, and was told I could not get appointed until six or seven months afterwards. After this I went to the medical shipping agent, Moore and Co., 14A-street, Mary Axe, who agreed to get an appointment for me if I would give him commission for trouble. I said I would do so. He procured me my appointment in less than two months, for which he charged mei'lo." Dr. Nesbitt says':—"l came out in the Queen Bee in 1872, and returned in her. In July I applied for another ship to the Agent-General, and continued applying till September, always receiving unsatisfactory replies. I then procured other employment till 1574, when I re-applied. From that date I kept applying every few weeks till October, being told all the time that surgeons were not appointed for the next month, and no arrangements were made any further. 1 then gave the matter up and applied to the medical agent. He told me it was a shame, but they would never appoint surgeons except through him. In ten days I got a ship and I paid the agent £10. During those months —from May to October, IS7-I—there were despatched from London to the colony 31 ships, with an aggregate of over SOOO passengers. Some of the surgeons had never been to sea ; yet, they could find no vacancy for one who had served the Government well. I had been to New Zealand before. I had been in responsible charge of 900 passengers on several occasions. 1 am in possession of some of the best obtainable British degrees and diplomas, and have, in addition, excellent testimonials. Yet, after all, my ship had less than the average number of passengers. After my appointment, I applied to the Agent-General for £50, which is given to surgeons who take a second voyage, and I was told that it was more than eight months since my return. I represented that it was no fault of mine, and the clerks said inquiry would be made. I then applied by letter to Featherston, at his house, but again received no answer. Common courtesy demanded a reply, and justice -and the welfare of the colony, as far as regards emigrants, ought to have led the Government to investigate so scandalous a system. I have no proofs that clerks at Westminster receive bribes. 1 was told by medical agent that they received half of his fee. Besides hia statement, I found my opinions on the fact that two and two make four." On the 6th April Atkinson writes acknowledging the receipt of a letter dated 10th January (from Dr. Featherston) saying: " It appeared to me to be of so unbecoming a character that I felt it my duty to bring it under the notice of my colleagues. The question having been carefully considered, Government decided to have expunged from the public records of the colony your letter No. 5, and it has been expunged accordingly. I have thereforo to return your letter, and to point out what I should have thought must be very obvious—that it will bo impossible to carry on the public business of the colony, if such suggestions, whether reasonable or unreasonable, as those contained in my predecessor's letter {So. 1SI), are to be met and treated by you as they have been in the letter herewith returned. Letter No. 5 is not published. It dealt with the Royal Commission Keport on the ship Scimitar. . IJeplyiug to ogel, who had informed him of the decision of Gove: > jnt not to receive the letter, Dr. Feathu...ton on the 2nd of April says : "I confess I feel both surprised and grieved at this decision of the Government. If my views had been considered erroneous, or if it had been alleged that I had given insufficient attention to the proposals of the Commission, or to your letter endorsing them, urgently enforcing them upon my attention, I should not have a word to say. But when it is the 'nature,' by which I assume it is meant the general character and tone, of my letter that is stigmatised as intolerably disrespectful- I take leave (lor continuation of newt tee Supplement.)

to say that the nature of o document so necessarily depends upon the inkntion with which is written and ,t is both my right and iny duty to disclaim m rtem m st absolute terms any feeling whatdisrespect, .either towards the Government or towards the Royal Commission, i the remarks which it became my duty to make on proposals u l( o.i winch you nivited £v judgment and action. It is quite imthat the nature of a long and cirSmlanS public document should exhibit intolerable direspeot towards the Government to which it was addressed without an official who has had my long and responsible experience in the service of the colony being in the very shghtest degree conscious of such a sentiment. Weed the very nature of the subject was sUch.as to forbid the expression of any such animus-, if it could possibly have existed. Your letteY brought before me a number of suggestions, some of which I adopted. There are grave difficulties in establishing and working such a system. I saw grave natural objections to it if these difficulties could be overcome. I repeat, it is not possible I could have treat.'d such topics in a tone of intolerable disrespect. I trust that after this complete disclaimer upon my part of the feeling which alone could have communicated a character of disrespect to my letter, Government will see reason to reconsider their decision, as I should suppose I had neglected to reply to suggestions of such important commission, placed before me as they had been in so forcible a light in your letter of -9th June, 1574." On 4th May Mr. Vogel replied, ""I am sorry you Bhould defend such a despatch. You allege that your despatch could not have been disrespectful because it was not intended to be so. You will allow me to suggest to you that habitually regarding with suspicion, and something allied to contempt, the instructions and recommendations sent to you from the colony, may lead you into disrespectful communieatious without your specially intending to give them that character. In looking over original despatch to which it was a reply, I observed, amongst other notes, the words ' absolutely absurd,' in~ your handwriting, opposite a passage which it contained. Putting aside the fact of your making such a note to a document which remains a record of your dep-irtment, it is not unnatural that your reply, bised on such a note, should take the ch iracter of which the Cabinet complains, .r.s you have raised the question, I have no hesitation in saying that I think your letter was most disrespectful. In explanation of this opinion, I may state that 1 think the tendency to object to anything proposed by the Government, and the disposition to seize ;<articular points of letters, instead of accepting their broad and general meaning, and ignoring the context, and to found upon e.:ch points pages of unnecessary writing, Are evidences of disrespect, whether inteutitJial or not. In scarcely any of your lengthy letters do you take a fair view of the c mmunicatious to which you are replying. If, instead of writing pages on the subject, yxi had said you were of opinion that some of the features of life assurance or medial •examination were objectionable, and ti ; at you -would therefore modify the propo--U, whikt at the same time endeavouring to make the examinations something more thin a form, it would have been clear that ;. »u desired to meet the wishes of the Government. Instead of that, you threw ridkiJe on the proposal, and shewed no disposit: m to remedy entirely unsatisfactory medical examinations, of which complaints had io often been made. Similarly you gave yon rself great trouble about the recommendati n concerning the children's mess. Yourlabourcd attempt to see in the proposal an insult > o female immigrants, and a violation of t;e duties and rights of maternity, seems to a. i utterly wanting in justification. I shall forward a copy of this correspondence to ti-.o colony. I cannot say what course my co: leagues will adopt concerning it."

On 14th May Dr. Featherston replies to th ■ Premier, saying : —" I have carefully reoon sidered the whole subject, and I adhere to my declaration, that it is absolutely impossible for me to have been guilty of address ing a communication of an intolerably disrespectful nature to the Government without having the least intention or consciousness of exhibiting disrespect. I also repeat the positive disclaimer of having entertained any such sentiment towards the Government. Iu order to justify the terms of the telegram lent from Wellington last month which imputes the offence of intolerable disrespect towards the Government to me, you refer to a marginal note on the copy of the original despatch addressed tome, and now in my office, which, at your request, I unhesitatingly placed in your hands, in order to enable you to consider the terms of your reply to my letter defending myself against -the charge. I do not presume to characterise your conduct in referring iu an official despatch to my private memoranda on an official document addressed to myself, and plac*d by me with full and honorable confidence in your hands, except by saying that I believe it would be difficult to find a precedent for such a proceeding in official intercourse. 1 might have erased the original memorandum you refer to before placing the d'>cument in your hand's, for it formed no part of its official substance. I might have sent you a copy' of the despatch, and fluch would certainly have been the more strictly correct course in regard to a paper duly recorded :in my office, but having placed the paper as it stood in your hands, I could .not have conceived that you would look among my .first crude impressions, jotted down as I read the despatch, for material to justify ±he judgment of the Government, communicated • in such an unusnal manner, on the character of my xeply to that despatch. It may be that the course of making such memoranda on official papers is open to objection. When you once casually spoke to me on this point you fuay remember I told you I had just ■, received a despatch from Wellington, in which ±he somewhat scathing epithet " nou- i sense™ was no less than five times written j opposite the suggestions of one particular re- j port, io the handwriting, as 1 believe, of the ; Minister, and with the intention, no doubt, I of giving jjie a broad hint that I was not ex- j pected by the department to pay any very ' particular attention to the recommendations in question 5 for on referring to your original despatch I find that the words, "absolutely absurd," are .written opposite a sentence quoted by yon from the report of Bathgate, Strode, and Hackea, on the ship Scimitar. This sentence, which you insert in inverted commas, is, * T3ie children should be messed together by themselves.' Therefore, the phrase cannot be said even to color the charge of intolerable disrespect to the Government. It was not applied to .anything the Government had said ,or done. I regret to perceive that •besides insisting that iny letter must have .been * most disrespectful,' whether I intended to exhibit a feeling which I am A\?are I never harboured, you accuse jne of habitually regarding with suspicion and ■anything allied to contempt the inaiructioctjind recommendations cent to me irom the colony, and of a 'tendency to object to anything proposed by Government' ; of a disposition to seize particular points of letters instead .of the broad and general meaning, and igottcing the context to found upon such points pages of unnecessary writing. In regard to the particular letter, the cause of this correspondence, I do not think that there is evidence here of any of the serious faults which y«z impute as belonging to the character of myjeorrespondence. That it unfortunately has especially during the last year, much writing which I could wi»h had been unnecessary, I am sadly conscious. During that time there are t not mauy charges that could be brought gainst the character of a public officer, respecting which I have not had occasion to defend myself in my replies to your uVapatches. I have been obliged, with grjat regret and reluctance, to withdraw /ery »Wh time from tbe proper djjtjca y f my i

office and the service of the colony, in j defending my honour as a public officer | against imputations. It was my duty to ; my own character ; it was my duty to the j colony, in whose service I have spent many happy and not useless or unhonored yiars, | not to leave such charges unanswered, even , though I might subject myself to your further strictures on my letters as being •controversial' or as containing unnecessary writings.' I may be permitted to add that such an experience was a novelty in my career I have, as you well know, served the colony for over 20 years in nW and responsible offices, to which generally in moments of emergency and difficulty 1 was called by various Ministries without distinction of party. I am proud to remember that on no occasion did I fail to receive the cordial and complete support the generous and ungrudging acknowledgment of such service as 1 was able to renucr to the colony by those who employed me as well as the warmly tcstilied goodwill of the Imperial and Colonial Governments to which I was accredited ; and not less now than'at any previous time have I the satisfaction of knowing that the arduous duties which have devolved upon me in connection with the organisation and conduct of the AgentGeneral's department have been discharged with unabated zeal and with continuous ■ success, nor do I in the least lose confidence that the services of this department will, notwithstauding temporary misconception, be yet fully and truly appreciated by the people of New Zealand." This is the last letter of the correspondence published.