THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1883.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6827, 4 October 1883, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1883.

The honourable member for City West has every reason to congratulate himself on his meeting with his constituents. The assemblage was a large one, and friendly from the first; his statements were received with satisfaction and applauded to the echo ; and there was generally a moderation in tone, very different from the fierce invective and denunciation which were generally anticipated from one who may be regarded as the "free lanee" of the Assembly. We may not agree with all the conclusions of the honourable member, but this will not prevent anyone from admitting that he put his case in the best possible manner, and so as best secures the approval of a popular assembly not disposed to bother itself with too critical an investigation of details. Indeed, it is to be regretted that Mr. Dargaville necessarily found himself compelled to go into an unhappy little episode in his Parliamentary procedure, on which most people have already matured their opinions, the general opinion being that though Mr. Dargaville's retentions may have been the best possible, they failed in appropriate j effect from being—at least, so far as came out in evidence—insufficiently sustained by a basis of facts. The honourable gentleman complains of having been unfairly represented by the Auckland Press ; but speaking for ourselves we think it will be admitted on an impartial survey of the case as represented by himself that this is very much that which has been already j submitted to our readers ; and though i the deductions may not be the same as his own in all respects, still we think ! they do not materially diverge from j those that will be generally formed on a i careful perusal of his own statement of !

last night. It will be recollected that the matter of the £225,000 placed on deposit with the Bank of New Zealand was a subsequent issue raised by Mr. Dargaville, and that the original charges of political corruption in respect of tne Consolidation Loan Acts, and which chiefly arrested the attention of the colony dropped aside at an early period of the trouble. Mr. Dargaville admitted that he did not mean to attribute personal dishonour or dishonesty to the gentlemen charged namely, Mr. Whitaker and Major Atkinson, and though he maintained to the last the feature of political corruption, he did not take the opportunity of substantiating it ia relation to the original charge ; which had in it such palpable errors of fact, that he must have been wholly misled. That was conspicuously shown in his reference to the Government having wrested the Property Tax Act to favour loan com- ! panies, while he was unaware'that the clause in question had been repealed years before. It may be .that Major Atkinson availed himself of the forms of the House to baulk Mr. Dargaville's notice of motion in relation to this particular charge; but most people think that an opportunity was afforded to the honourable gentleman for formulating this charge, when the Select

Committee met and requested him to

do so. In waiving the opportunity and bringing forward a wholly new and different count in his indictment, Mr. Dargaville has conveyed the impression that he felt he could not substantiate the former, and it cannot be

denied that in consequence he is universally regarded as having committed a blunder—which is politically worse than a crime—in making rash and reckless charges. We venture to say that the attention of the colony was fixed on that first and startling charge, and that being apparently put aside, people were very much indifferent about the new issue with reference to the placing of a quarter of a million on deposit iu the bank.

We are far from saying that this was a trifling thing if it involved political favouritism or corruption. That charge was " Tiiat the Government lent a sum of £225,000 of trust funds over which the Treasurer has control, to the Bank of New Zealand, without security, for a term of years, in a manner not contemplated by the law, thereby giving undue advantages to one banking establishment closely allied with the present administration. Further, that Parliament has not yet been informed of the transaction." The facts of the case, as came out in evidence, were these. The Commissioner of Government Insurance had received this sum in course of business, and sought an outlet for its investment. He applied to the Treasurer for Treasury Bills, or some other means of profitable investment, and for the

time could find none of a satisfactory kind. The money was lying at the time in the Bank of New Zealand, in ordinary account at three per cent., and he transferred it to the deposit account for a term of two years, bearing a rate of interest of six per cent. It may be a legitimate question to raise whether such a siini should be placed on deposit in a bank, instead of beinginvested insecurities of somekind; but if, as is alleged, no satisfactory investments were available at the time, we can hardly see -what else can be done than allow it to remain in the bank till investments offered, and if two forms of deposit were available, the one giving three and the other six per cent., we cannot think

the Commissioner acted wrongly in transferring to the account paying double interest; especially as ■it conies out in evidence that these, being public moneys, could have been withdrawn at any time, even though nominally on deposit for two years. But the gravamen of the charge is, that this was done by the Treasurer, and that in so doing he showed political favouritism to the Bank of New Zealand. But it appears the Treasurer and the Government had no authority or control in the matter. This is very clear. In all "investments," as in Treasury Bills, debentures, or other securities, the Treasurer's authority, rules. But this was not "investment" within the meaning of the Acts. The law authorities are very clear on this. Messrs. Stout and Reid, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in IS7B under the Grey Administration, said, " We do not think placing money on fixed deposit at a bank could be termed investment;" and again Mr. Reid, giving his opinion on this immediate case, said "in my opinion a deposit of money in a bank to be repaid with interest after a stated period is not ' investment , within the meaning of these provisions." Had it been "investment," the . Treasurer's authority would have been required; as it_ was, the £225,000 was entirely without the control of the Treasurer or j Government. Even had it been other- > wise, it is a noteworthy fact that this system of placing money on fixed deposit with the Bank of New Zealand, las the Government's banking office, I was initiated under the Government of Sir George Grey, who will not be suspected of political corruption or favouritism in that particular direction at all eVents. Indeed, it appears that on the retirement of the Grey administration an aggregate of over £260,000 of trust funds were lying on fixed deposit at the same bank. Of course, two blacks would not make one white, but this seems to dispose of the question of favouritism and corruption. With regard to Parliament " not bein<* yet informed on the subject,"'it came out in evidence that the period at which the statement must be laid on the table of the House, as it had been laid in all previous years, had not yet arrived.

In these circumstances it -will hardly ~ be wondered at that the Committee of I Investigation reported " That the evidence with regard, to that transaction wholly fails to substantiate the charge, and that the allegation of political corruption based upon it is therefore entirely unfounded." Mr. Dargaville complains that the committee was unfairly constituted, consisting of four of the Ministerial party, three of the Opposition party, and none at all of the Dargaville party; but as he had informed his constituents that that ; party consisted of only one, we think j the honourable gentleman is rather J j unreasonable in expecting that the third party in the House should have j had a substantial representation on the j committee, considering all the circumstances of the case. The fact is the ; honourable gentleman made a false j step in rashly making charges, which, j not to put too fine a point upon it, he was noc in a position' to substantiate He can live it down, and the spirited peroration in the Assembly in which he j wound up the and hurled defiance and challenge to Major Atkinson to push his victory to the extreme and declare his seat vacant, will go a lon« I way with the public in making them I overlook the offence of rashness. As for the rest of the speech of Mr IJargaville, and especially his exposition of constitutional reform, in which he shone conspicuously, it was worthy of the .occasion ; and while the unguarded action which has cost him so much trouble may be forgiven by his constituents, we feel confident that the lessons of it will not be lost on his future career.