MORE DARGAVILLE CHARGES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 606, 15 September 1883, Page 8

MORE DARGAVILLE CHARGES.

DEBATE ON THE REPORT.

In the House of Representatives on the 6th inst., the report of a... Select .Conusaitteo on the; charges made by Mr Dargaville against the Premier and Treasurer came up for adoption. About 50 members were present, the others having left Wellington. ' - , Mr MASON moved that the report of the Dargaville Inquiry Committee be agreed to. This inquiry had been conducted as much as possible without party spirit, and he therefore thought the House should adopt the Committ6o*s report. Mr BUCHANAN stated that the Treasurer, since itheir little passage of arms the other night, had said he had made the motion he did •without any personal feeling against himself. That assurance he frankly accepted ; and. he said that, both as to this and the Dargaville charges, the House should now “ let the dead Past bury its dead. (Hear, hear.) He claimed to hold a mutual position, and he appealed to the other members so influenced to aid him iu disposing of this matter by moving “the previous question.” Mr MONTGOMERY had not wished to act on this Committee of Inquiry, but being there he acted as if he had been under oath on a jury. He hoped the House w, uld follow a precedent in the British Parliament in 1573, with reference to a charge of political profligacy by certain members, for their own personal advantage and advancement. That charge had been discussed and allowed to drop as a general charge which called for no inquiry. .The same course should be followed here, instead of carrying the matter further, and so stirring up ill feeling. He wished to . preserve the honor of the House and its members ; and he therefore hoped that, the verdict of the Committee, after being placed on the table, should be allowed to lie. there. In voting in Committee on that verdict, he had not consulted any member, but acted on his independent judgment. If this House, now passed an opinion on that verdict, its opinion would not carry more weight with the country than that verdict of a Committee, which had been arrived at unanimously. Hon. Mr BRYCE agreed that they should, if possible, depart in peace. It rested with one member in that House to give good reasons why that question should now be put without further discussion. If an error had been committed in those charges, the error should be admitted* and a proper expression of regret be made. A very slight expression -of regret from that hon. member would put an end to this matter at once. Mr DARGAVILLE thought there was a more important question than any that seemed to be contemplated by those who wished to smooth matters over. That was, whether a member of this House was to be deterred from performing a public duty by expressing his convictions. If he were now to express regiet for a single word he had said, he would not be worthy of a seat in this House for another day, and he would be ashamed to hold up his head |before his constituents. (“ Oh, oh.”) The tact and generalship of that packed Committee (“Order, order.”) SPEAKER: I cannot allow such a statement to be made of a Committee. There is certainly no warrant for it. Several members called out “withdraw.” Mr DAJRGAVILLE withdrew the word “ packed,” but said that the Committee named by the Treasurer had limited him to one particular charge, in order to substantiate his accusation of political corruption against the Ministry. Had he formulated a large number of charges, as suggested by the Committee, he would have so protracted the proceedings as to lay himself open to a charge of preventing the Committee from reporting this session. He must now say the report of the Committee was most unfair. The evidence showed it to be a most one-sided report, strongly biassed. He was limited to one charge; and he now read extracts to the House from the Committee’s proceedings to show why he limited himself to the one charge, resting his accusation of political corruption on that one charge. Had the Committee’s report been in accordance with the evidence, he would not have had to trouble the House with any remarks on it. His charge was as. to the lodging of L 225,000 of trust funds with one bank. That charge, if corroborated, would constitute political corruption. He had called witnesses ; and he submitted that every particular portion of the charge was substantiated by the evidence. The operation was shown to be unprecedented, and it was shown that the Treasurer was cognisant of it, and approved of it. The Treasurer, with his strong, overbearing disposition, acting on a weak, obsequious, sycophantic Commissioner (Mr Luckie), was sure to carry his will in this matter of investing funds of the Insurance Department. The investment was practically the Act of the Trea- 1 surer. Mr Luckie had claimed to rest his action on clause 10 of the Public Revenues Act, 1878 ; that clause being only a provision for operating on the insurance account. Would Mr Luckie have dared to so interpret that clause, if he had not been moved thereto by the Treasurer ? The Treasurer was the ch ef agent in doing that, and therefore he charged him with favoring that Bank. If a member, believing this, were to hesitate to his views in the House on this transaction, he would not be doing his duty. He felt that he occupied a higher position in the eyes of the country than the gentlemen who were endeavoring to persecute him. (“Oh, oh.”) He was acting from a sense of duty, while they were endeavoring to screen themselves from the consequences of their own misdeeds. (“Oh, oh,” and laughter.) In giving evidence before the Committee, Government officers contradicted one another on most material points. Mr Luckie and Mr Gavin were in conflict as to the condition of withdraw.ng the deposit. The Treasurer must have known that he was acting directly in violation of the law, though the charge he made before the Committee was not so strong as this and might fairly have been made stronger. After these disclosures, the Treasurer had got a special Act passed the other evening to give the sanction of law to this mode of investing trust funds. Was not that proof enough that the Treasurer had acted contrary to the law as it was ? If he was not at liberty to express his condemnation of these transactions, the liberties of the country would not be worth much in a few years. He felt almost grateful for the course of persecution which had been set up. He dared the Treasurer to follow up this by declaring his seat for Auckland City West to be vacant; and then he would appeal to his constituents to endorse what he had done. The Treasurer dare not do it. Look at the Treasurer a 3 he sat there (pointing to him) : “ O, coward conscience, thou do3t affright me." (Much laughter.) Let him follow it up to its legitimate consequences. Let the Auckland ring—his friends and colleagues—the. people who supported him in h : s present position—let them put forward their best man in Auckland againsthimself, and let the elecors of Auckland City West say whether the G overnment were guilty of political corruption. Let that be the

issue to go to his constituents, and let it not be decided by a servile following of: the Ministry. What was there in the House at that moment ? Only the concentrated essence of the Government supporters ; for those members who had some little independence had gone home, while only those had remained who wore subservient to the Treasurer’s bidding—to whom he could say, “ You stay here tillithis Dargaville business is over.” But even in their case, it was said that one or two were kicking over the traces, and the Hinemoa had been detained to keep them in Wellington. Any language he had used was strictly within the rules of Parliamentary debate but remembering the provocation he had received ; remembering the manifest political corruption of the Government —their native land transactions, their Russell land bill, their banking transactions —remembering all those political corrupt .practices on the part of the Government, and then reading over again the two speeches he had ma le, he felt almost ashamed of the weak and utterly inadequate manner in which he was able to denounce them. He regretted he had not been able to express himself more forcibly. (“ Oh, oh,” and laughter.) He stood amazed at his own moderation. (Loud laughter.) He absolutely refused to withdraw a single word. He absolutely refused to express regret. He believed in his heart that he was fully' warranted in saying what he did say ; and he believed he would have been warranted in going further. He was willing to take the consequences—he cared not what they might be, so long as he was relegated to his constituents. Do not be cowardly—let that tribunal decide it. As to a decision of the concentrated essence of the Government party, reduced to some 20 men, let them adopt this report, if it implied any censure, and he would treat such a decision with the contumely that it deserved. After these remarks, the hon. member left the House, and did not return till after the division. Mr TURNBULL said the matter should be allowed to go no further. Mr J. C. BROWN deprecated any further action. Mr SEDDON said that, as Mr Dargaville appeared to believe in the truth of the charges he had made, the House should take no further action, for by doing so the House seemed to be going back to the dark ages. Mr Dargaville had acted rightly in refusing to withdraw from statements which he believed to be true. The Premier and the Treasurer had not been lowered at all by the charges made by a member who believed them in his own mind to be true. The matter should be allowed to drop. Mr MOSS hoped the report would not be adopted. The Committee’s report had not defined what was political corruption. The people of the country would not accept the decision of this House on the question, and a decision should therefore not be attempted. By-the course taken, they had made Mr Dargaville appear as the champion of the freedom of debate before his constituents. He hoped the “ previous question ” would be carried. Mr SHAW felt strongly that his own honor as a member had been assailed by the course Mr Dargaville had taken in repeating his previous charge, that the Treasurer was a willing tool of the Bank of New Zealand, and could not sit in this House without its support. It was monstrous that members supporting the Treasurer as leader of the Government should be charged, and re-charged, with supporting a Minister who was only the willing and subservient tool of a bank. Such a charge must reflect personally on every supporter of the Government in this House. Each member thus became, by implication, a willing tool of that bank. An excellent opportunity had been missed by Mr Dargaville to explain that he might have been mistaken in what he had supposed to be a true charge. Mr DODSON regretted that Mr Dargaville appeared to glory in the notoriety of the charges he had made. Still, as the Treasurer had not been hurt by these charges, he was sufficiently vindicated, and the matter should be allowed to drop. Mr Dargaville was evidently too obtuse to realise his true position in this matter. Let him glory in his notoriety, and be left tomimself. Major HARRIS considered that Mr Dargaville was net wrong in his charges, according to the evidence. Mr SHEPHARD said that after Mr Dargaville’s speech that night, in refusing to express regret, and actually reiterating the charges he had made, it was impossible to let the matter drop. In using such expressions as “ packed jury ” essence of servile following of the Government ” —these could not properly apply either to the Committee or this House. The proceedings showed that every one of its decisions was unanimous ; and that Committee included prominent members ef the Opposition. Political corruption could not have been the motive for placing L 220,000 on deposit with the Government Bank, because such deposits had been the practice during many years, by different Governments. After Mr Dargavilie’s defiant repetition of his charges in the House that night, they were obliged to come to a decision on them.

Mr SHEEHAN said the essential charges made by Mr Dargaville were not the charges that the Committee reported on. He had heard much stronger language used in the House than that which had provoked this inquiry. No member had been accused so grossly, so vilely, as he had been accused in that House, and yet no one on the Government side had taken the matter up as this case had been taken up. He did not accept the charges against the Premier, nor those against the Treasurer. That Minister had brought about a reign of terror by getting up and attacking with the force of a big mastiff any member who dared directly to oppose him. It would be better to have license of speech in that House than a gagged mouth. The whole business shou’d be now drojjpsd. The tribunal could not be called impartial. The Committee was was not a tribunal before which the House would send a man to be tried for a criminal offence. The guillotine would not be a patch on the unfairness of trying a member by a Committee of this kind. Captain MACKENZIE regarded Mr Dargavilie’s speech that night as a gross repetition of his previous insulting speech. The House could not now escape the necessity of a decision on this question. Every member supporting the Government had been accused of political corruption by Mr Dargavilie’s speech that night. Mr JOYCE thought that the fact of the Treasurer being still in that position by the will of the House was a sufficient vindication, and the “ charges ” should be allowed to drop. Mr STEVENS said the Treasurer was in thepo-ition of a person who had been struck by another, and it was the duty of that other person to apologise. There had been no attempt at apology. Mr Dargaville had failed to offer any evidence on his charge against the Premier of receiving LIO,OOO. His charges, as shown by the absence of evidence, were totally unfounded; and yet no regret had been expressed. The Committee appeared to have been most forbearing towards Mr Dargaville ; and it was not fair to say the Committee were biassed. He would vote for adopting the Committee’s very mild report.

Mr BARRON deprecated any curtailment .ofThe freedom of speech, so long as the- words were not unparliamentary. The Treasurer, after twenty years of public life, should need' no vindication by a Committee. Division was taken in this form, “ That the question be now put,” this being carried by 30: to 17. The “ previous question ” was thereby negatived, and the “ayes” practically affirmed the report thus: Ayes, 30.—Beetham, J. E. Brown, Bryce, W. C. Buchanan, Conolly, Dick, Dodson, Driver, Hobbs, Hurst, Hursthouse, C. J. Johnston, W. W. Johnston, Kelly, Levestam, E. W. Mackenzie, Mason, Morris, Pearson, Petrie, Postlethwaite, Rolleston, Shaw, Shephard, Stevens, Trimble, Watt, Whitaker, J. B. Whyte, J. G. Wilson. Noes, 17. Barron, J. C. Brown, J. Buchanan, Daniel, Feldwick, Grey, Harris, Hutchison, Joyce, J. McKenzie, Montgomery, Seddon, Sheehan, Shrimslsi, Smith, Turnbull, W. White. A large number of members had paired on general business, no particular arrangement being made as to voting on this question. It is not therefore desirable to print pairs in this connection. A second division was taken on the adoption of the report, but all the Opposition members walked out except the two who were named as tellers. The motion being adopted, the Dargaville affair ended.