MR FISHER’S RETIREMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 906, 12 July 1889, Page 25

MR FISHER’S RETIREMENT.

[the correspondence concluded.] .Wellington, 3lßt May. 1889. The Hon. the Premier. —On the 11th April —more than a month and a half past—in a letter addressed by you to the Wellington Evening Post, you informed the people of the Colony that all the facts connected with my retirement from the Ministry should be made public as soon as possible. These were your words :—“ The Government desire that all the facts connected with Mr Fisher’s retirement should be made public as soon as possible. The official correspondence upon the,subject which is necessary 'to elicit the facts fully has, however, not yet closed.” I am not, of course, in a position to say with whom, or with how many persons, the correspondence Was being conducted ; but so far as concerns myself it was closed on the 12th April, when I informed you that your ungenerous conduct rendered it impossible for me to hold any further communication with you upon any subject. ' . . My intention was to await the publication of your views, in accordance with your public statement that they should be published, and then to answer them publicly ; but a change of tactics has resulted in the abandonment of your intention to make public your answer, and instead I have received from you a letter of an extraordinary character, dated 23rd April, 1889, which I am led to believe you decline. to publish except under the protection of parliamentary privilege. That letter I now propose to answer by writing to you, as you have by your altered tactics debarred me from any other opportunity of refuting the statements it contains, or of explaining any of the circumstances to which it refers. Before criticising the letter, however, I desire to call attention not only to your change of tactics, but to your change of tone. Thi3 letter of the 23rd April charges me with deception and dishonour, and assails me generally in a wanton and unfeeling manner. The letter is really a very serious letter, but your correspondence, with all its seriousness, is. somewhat comic. For example,' the deception and dishonour which existed on the 23rfi April, if they existed at all, must have existed on the Ist April and the 4th April. Yet on the Ist April you do not charge me with deception and dishonour. I was then your “ Dear Mr Fisher.” It is true you said you could notin Parliament defend my action in the brewery cases. I have already explained, in my letter of, the 6th April, that it could not under any parliamentary formulary become necessary for you to do so; but you still addressed me in a very friendly and kindly way as “ Yours sincerely, ’ and, as to the brewery question being really serious, so far as that was concerned, you wrote, “ If you ■would prefer to resign upon the case as it now stands I shall be glad to meet your wishes and withdraw this letter.” The brewery case •evidently did not at that date cause you any anguish or mental tumult. Clearly, at that time the dishonour arising out of these cases, not to put too fine a point upon.lt, was moonshine. The resignation was the thing desired. On the ,4th April I am still “Dear Mr Fisher,” and you are still “Yours sincerely.” In your letter of that date the resignation is still harped upon, but not a word is said about the brewery cases, or the many moral delinquencies which your vivid imagination now connects with them. As explained in my letter of the 6th April, I objected to your withdrawal of your letter of the Ist April, which asked me to resign. I did not wish to remain a member of the Ministry, but I did wish to place on record my reasons for resigning. I desired also t. - ) do certain other things, all of which I will sat isfactorily explain ; but, because.l took upon myself to explain circumstantially in my letter of the fith April the real reasons which led to my resignation, I am at once regarded by you as a, misdemeanant of the first water. I am no longer “Dear Mr Fisher ; ” you are no longer “Yours sincerely.” Suddenly and stiffly I become “Sir;”, equally frigidly you become my “obedient servant.” And so we gravitate from the quip modest to the reply churlish. '■- Your letter of the. 23rd April is composed of afterthought and side-issue, as I am about to show, for if the allegations contained in that letter are true, and if you entertained the opinions of my actions which in that letter you profess to entertain, why was not the letter written on the Ist .April, not the 23rd ? and if my acts were surrounded by so much deception and dishonour, why do you offer to withdraw your letter of the Ist April ? Actions Buch as yours are utterly inconsistent and indefensible, as 1 think will be apparent to any unbiassed mind. r , , , I how proceed, t > discuss your letter of the 23rd April. 'For convenience I have lettered its paragraphs (A), (B), (C), &c. (A) refers to your having laid my letter and yours before his Excellency the Administrator. (B) refers to the “ Dear Mr Fisher ” period already referred to above, and to “ Yours sincerely,,” (C) refers to the beer-duty cases which I have dealt with in paragraph (I). (D,) This paragraph contains three important statements, with which I will deal in separate order, , . ' (1) refers to your unreasonable desire to hasten my retirement from office. You complain that my charge under this head “ betrays & complete misapprehension of my motives, •which will be sufficiently met by a bare reference to dates. These incidents [connected with the beer cases]' occurred during the first week in March, and I can hardly see that I could have been blamed if, in the face of such be« liaviour on your part, I had acted . with great promptitude. But it was not until the Ist: of April, three weeks later, that I wrote the first the letters of which you complain. a n unprejudiced critic would surely admit tha * the three weeks’ delay gave you ample time' for consideration.” I propose to submit % few tacts for the consideration of the “ unm 'ejudiced critic ” by firstly explaining in what w ay the three weeks were used. This is how thev' were used : The oabinet meeting was held on tl'te 4th March. You returned from Wanganui the night of the sth March. 1 saw vou in V«ur office on the morning of the 6th, and br.’«% touched upon the brewery question with > *<***- You were naturally, very busy, as great arrears of work awaited your, arrival. In addition to being busy, you were also very pleasant' with me, for you had not yet had time to became imbued with the prejudices of Messrs ,Hisloo and Fergus. P n Thursday, the 7th 1 Caret, » Cabinet meeting was convened to disc uss. the question of the Canterbury runs, at w'luch meeting the Hon Mr Hislop assailed the i?lon Mr Richardson m his usual unfeeling mann'er, the consequence of which was that the R T on Mr Richardson returned to you after the Cabinet meeting to say that he would no longer t derate the offensive manner and the offensive' Janguage of the Hon Mr Hislop. On Friday, the Bth March, I saw you again in your _ room about the ■ brewery' cases, when you informed me that-

you had referred the papers to the Hon Sir Frederick Whitaker and the Hon Mr Stevens for their opinion, the resident Ministers, you said, being’ divided, the Hon Mr Mitchelson and the Hon Mr Richardson being in my favour, and the Hon Mr Hislop and the Hon Mr Rergus being against me. I asked whether you would have any objection to my seeing the Hon Sir Frederick Whitaker and the Hon Mr Stevens, as, in my opinion, the papers required explanation; and you said you had no objection. . You at once wrote a telegram to the Hnn Sir Frederick Whitaker and the Hon Mr Stevens to this effect: “ Express no opinion on papers till you see Fisher.” I knew also that at this time the Hon Mr Fergus and the Hon Mr Hislop had told you that either they or Mr Fisher would have to leave the Ministry, and that the Hon Mr Hislop, having in Cabinet, in my absence, with his accustomed bitterness discussed the cases, and the manner in which he chose to assume that I was affected by them, had had the unpardonable presumption to write a letter to the Hon Mr Stevens with the view of biassing his opinion upon the question submitted to him. That is to say, behind my back he wrote a letter to the person who was asked to pass judgment upon me. I ought to say that in this respect the conduct of the Hon Mr Hislop was not worse than that of other Ministers, who communicated privately with Sir Frederick Whitaker when he was asked to give an unbiassed opinion upon the case. On Sunday morning, the 10th March, I called upon you at your residence to explain my feelings regarding the conduct of the (Inn Mr Fergus and the Hon Mr Hislop, and on that same day left for Christchurch te see the Hon Mr Stevens. I saw him on Monday, the 11th, and discussed the matter with him. I explain what I believe to be his view of the case in paragraph I. I returned to Wellington on Tuesday, the 12th March. On Friday, the 15th, I left by train on my way to Auckland to see Sir Frederick Whitaker, in accordance with my understanding with you. I arrived there on the 20tli. There were some unexpected delays. 1 discussed the question on several days (three, I think) with Sir Frederick Whitaker, and left Auckland for Wellington on the 26th. On Wednesday, the 27th of March, the Hon Mr Stevens, the Hon Mr Fergus, and I arrived in New Plymouth, they going north, I going south, and on the night of Friday, the 29th, I arrived in Wellington. Saturday, the 30th, I devoted to my departmental duties. The Sabbath, I believe, is a day of rest. I received your letter asking me to resign on Monday, the Ist April, so that one day after my arrival in Wellington, and literally at one day’s notice, you wished to hustle ,me out of office. Now, the “ unprejudiced critic,’’ I am sure, will see that I had had a busy, a restless, and an anxious month. , It. is true, I might have saved myself all my pains, for it had been determined during my absence from Wellington, as I afterward ascertained, that I should be forced to retire from the Ministry, that, at the time the Hon Mr Stevens, the Hon Mr Fergus, and I crossed at New. Plymouth, the Hon Mr Fergus was armed with authority to offer my portfolio to Mr J. B. Whyte, in Auckland.

(2) I concede that the brewery cases were the immediate cause of difference seized upon by some of my late colleagues to create a rupture in the Ministry, but I deny absolutely that it was the actual or real origin of the rupture. As I stated in my letter of the 6th April, I differed with the Cabinet upon eight large questions of public policy, but the real or active difference arose out of the peculiar, influences exercised by a section of the Cabinet in regard to the appointments to the Railway Board, the appointment to the Supreme Court Bench, and to the proposed appointment of an Engineer-in-Chief. As to my acting in direct opposition to the Cabinet held in your absenee on the 4th March, although I convened the meeting myself I did not regard it a 3 a decisive Cabinet meeting. No resolution was proposed, none was passed, or formally put. The Hon Mr Richardson and I were ranged on one side, and the Hon Mr Hislop and the Hon Mr Fergus on the other. Mr Richardson and I very much disapproved of Mr Hislop’s as sumptions and presumptions, for he had previously, in your absence treated us to many grandiloquent samples of his “precedence” as a Cabinet Minister, which always had the effect of exciting our mirth, as being extremely comic. But then you say I anted “ in direct opposition to your own opinion, which I subsequently telegraphed for.” You have evidently forgotten the facts. I understood one .expression of the feeb ing of the Cabinet meeting to be that I should communicate with you (vide my telegram to you of the 4th March); but, as nobody knew in what part of the country you were, I asked the telegraph authorities to search for you until they discovered.you. You were ultimately found at Wanganui, and my message was sent to you there at 7.40 p.m. .In addition to sending that message, I also, being extremely anxious to discuss the whole subject with you, when I found the Court had closed, and that it was too late therefore,, as I thought, to lay the information, asked if you could make it convenient to attend at the instrument at the Wanganui Telegraph Office, so that I could speak to you from the instrument at the Wellington office. You agreed to do so, and 8 o’clock was the hour fixed upon for our meeting, when, to my sorrow and annoyance, I found that after attending at the office you refused to discuss the matter. Why ? You refused to discuss what you now deem to be an important public question, because, . as you said, you had to keep a private appointment. This branch of the subject is further referred to in paragraph I, .. , ' (3.) You say, “When I found you considered it right to continue your departmental duties as Minister of Education [after the Ist April] I felt that your idea of the constitutional duties of a Minister was so much, at variance with mine that I had no alternative but to ask for a definite reply by Thursday night, especially as I had reason to think that you had in contemplation the possibility of taking no definite step for a week or ten days.” Again Ihavea word of explanation for the “unprejudiced critic.” Had I been made aware that I had been allowed to go to Auckland on a fool’s errand, that my forced retirement had already been determined upon in my absence, that the pretence that I was to be allowed to go to Auckland for an impartial hearing was a deception and. a sham, —if instead of all these things I had remained in my office in Welling, ton my departmental work would not have fallen into arrear, and I should have been in a position to retire on the Ist April, immediately on the receipt of your letter. But, as I have already explained, from the 10th to the 29th of March I was engaged upon what subsequently transpired to be an absolutely futile and needless expedition to the Hon Mr Stevens and the Hon Sir Frederick Whitaker. The 30th March was Sunday, my departmental work had greatly accumulated, and it had not escaped my attenr tion that in the Colony of New South Wales, when the last Parkes Administration went out of office, one of the greatest offences laid to the charge of some of Sir Henry Parkes’ Ministers was that they had left their departmental work

hopelessly in arrear—so much so that the public interests had greatly suffered. With this experience before me I determined to leave no departmental arrears which' should either embarrass my successor or cause the public interest to r suffer. The belief is not altogether groundless that, had I left any considerable arrears of work, that circumstance would have been trumped up. into a further serious charge against me. You go on to say “you had reason to think that I had in contemplation the possibility of taking no definite steps for a week or ten days.” In one sense you had well-grounded reason for that belief. One of your colleagues, in conversation with me upon the subject of your letter of the Ist April, asking for my resignation, said he saw.no reason why I should resign before the decision was given by the Court in the Junction Brewery cases (the decision was to be given on the 10th April), because if it was in my favour—that is to say. if convictions were obtained the convictions would dispel the erroneous impression that had gone forth that the Junction Brewery had been allowed to escape, and in that way I should be fully acquitted in the public mind of any charge of having allowed the cases to lapse. As I have said, the impression in the minds of Ministers at one time, and in the minds of a great many other persons, was that through some act of mine the Junction Brewery had altogether escaped punishment. Had that been so the case would have indeed been serious. The convictions now obtained prove the impression to be quite erroneous. You had “good reason to believe,” as I have said, because I am aware that your colleague to whom I have just referred subsequently repeated to you the view of the matter which he had conveyed tome. There is no necessity, therefore, for any mysticism in regard to what you had “reason to think” upon this point. You will see, however, that I did not stand altogether alone in your Ministry. But I had not the least intention of remaining in office a week or ten days longer, for I was already aware of the alternative which had been put before you by the Hon. Mr Hislop and the Hon. Mr Fergus in regard to my retirement from the Ministry.

(E.) What I have said about my Education Rill is strictly accurate, but it is quite in accord with your habitual disparagement of other men’s labours that you should speak in disparaging terms of my connection with this Bill. Good or bad. every provision, every idea contained in it is mine. I do not claim that all these provisions and ideas are original, for many of them are in operation in other countries, but they are included in the Bill as the result of careful observation of the operation of all existing educational systems, which observation was not perfected orraatured until after my personal examination into the working of the Victorian and New South Wales systems. My own ideas being matured, as the result of much care, and thought I first gave, with great fullness, an outline of my proposals to Cabinet. I had at that time the whole groundwork of the Bill committed to paper. • It would be as sensible and as honourable to charge Mr Habens with retaining my material, which I placed in his hands for the purpose of drafting the Bill, as to charge me with retaining his draft manuscript. The charge, if charge it can be called, is positively childish. In clearing my tables on my retirement from office, Mr Habens’ manuscript was put by Mr Smith into a pack-ing-case in which were placed all my other papers and books.. Since the receipt of your letter the manuscript has been unearthed, and has been returned to the office. But, as you inform me with childish glee that the type of the Bill is not distributed, and”that you can have printed as many copies of the Bill os you please, why do you hanker so after this particular manuscript ? Do you hanker after the possession of Mr Cumin’s manuscript when he drafts your Bills ? And should I be justified in saying that all the Bills drafted by Mr Curnin were his, and not your Bills ? And if by any chance Mr Cumin’s manuscript were mislaid should I be allowed indulgence in the childish thought that you had abstracted it dishonestly and bolted with it ? Can puerility any further go ? And as to an irregular publication of a synopsis of the Bill, I have some recollection of synopses of Bills having appeared many times before. I am informed that such a publication is not at all unusual. There are, I believe, instances on record, where Sir Harry Atkinson has published a synopsis of a Bill to ascertain how it would take with the public. It was late in the day, certainly, for me to submit the Bill to Cabinet, for it was only sent to me from the printer on the 4th April, the synopsis appeared in the Evening Post on the sth, and I was virtually Ministerially defunct on the Ist. How, under these circumstances, could I submit the Bill to Cabinet ? Besides, I had not received any unprecedented amount of encouragement when previously I had described the groundwork of the Bill to Cabinet, for outside of yourself, who wished to see the Education Boards merged into the County Councils-—a step to destroy the autonomy of the Education system which I could not approve, as tending too much in the direction of j your Hawera speech of 1884, in which you expressed the belief that a return to denominationalism was not improbable—the only other member of the Cabinet who took what may be termed a distinct interest in the subject was the Hon Mr Fergus, who said that the clauses relating to the promotion of technical education were “ bosh.” To be candid, I did not look for much educational inspiration in the direction of the Cabinet. I should indeed be sorry to pass away from the subject without expressing my warm admiration of Mr Habens’ labours in connection with the Bill, and generally of his services to the department and to the country. No man could be more able, more energetic, more whole-souled in the cause of education and in a ceaseless watchfulness in the interest of the public good. (F.) It is indisputable that “constitutionally the Premier possesses the right of at any time asking a colleague to resign, and of recommending the Crown to dismiss him if he refuses.” But the Crown has a potent voice in such Cases. I say again that in the interest of succeeding Ministers I was Unquestionably very deliberate about acceding to your request that I should resign. I told you (vide my letter of the 3rd April) that the question involved was one of serious moment to me, and that I must have reasonable time to- consider it. I told you again (4th April) when you wgre pressing very hard for my resignation—the hjfchertq unascertained and unascertainable mystery in regard to the pressure being now explained by the fact that the Hon. Mr Fergus was on that very day offering my portfolio to Mr J. B. Whyte, in 'Auckland—that “in the interests of all Ministers who were to succeed me I could not consent to allow myself to be made the means of establishing a precedent which, becoming part of the history of Cabinets in this country, would henceforward destroy the freedom of thought and the independence of action of future Ministers.” On the 6th April my resignation, and the letter accompanying it, giving my reasons for resigning, were ready for delivery, but, owing to a delay of an unpremeditated nature,

which I really thought unimportant, my resignation. as you correctly say, did not reach you until 9.40 oii Sunday evening, the 7th. I had undertaken to send my resignation “at the end of the week.” Sunday is dies non. The resignation was in before the beginning of next week. On Monday morning I received this letter : Premier’s Office, Wellington, Bth April, 1889. Sir, —By direction of his Excellency the Administrator of the Government I have the honour to inform you that his Excellency has accepted your resignation of the offices held by you of Miuister of Education, Commissioner and Minister of Trade and Customs, and of member of the Executive Couucil. —I have, &c., H.’A. Atkinson.

Geo. Fisher. Esq., M.H.R., Wellington. That is the formula usually observed on such occasions, and it is usually sufficient for all purposes. But in a subsequent letter—the letter of the 23rd April—is contained this statement : “ As a matter of fact, in this case, when I failed to receive, your resignation, as promised, by Saturday night, I did advise his Excellency the Administrator to dismiss you on Monday morning from all your offices, and his Excellency signified his acceptance of my advice as to your dismissal. Upon receiving your resignation late on Sunday night, I recommended that your resignation should be accepted, and hi 3 Excellency was pleased to approve of that recommendation, in place of the one for your dismissal.” This is a manifestation of that vindictive and domineering spirit which has become a recognised part of your character. It is a bombastic, a wanton attempt to wound, which no man of chivalrous feeling would resort to. The resignation, and its acceptance, would have satisfied any man of true manly spirit, but it was not enough for a man of the east of. character of Sir Harry Atkinson. You go on then to say, “ My reason for recommending his Excellency to dismiss you was that on Saturday I discovered you had made, during the last few days you had held office, such an extraordinary use of your Ministerial position that I did not consider it right you should remain in a position which enabled you to deal with public records in an improper manner. I found you had caused to be printed at the public expense for your own use the file of papers relating to the Junction Brewery prosecutions, the file relating to Hamilton’s case, and a selection from a file relating to Mr Jackman. In each of these cases not only were the papers printed, but also the official and Ministerial minutes.”

The Ministerial minutes are my own Ministerial minutes. As to the reasons above set out. I am led to believe that you knew nothing of the printing of the papers until Monday, the Bth. If that is so, the printing of these papers cannot have formed any part of the reasons for my dismissal put before his Excellency the Administrator by you on Sunday, the 7th. A demand from Parliament to be furnished with the reasons will, however, set at rest any question as to what.the reasons actually were. I welcome this opportunity of explaining all that is contained in the last-quoted paragraph from your letter. In the first place, my late experience of you (taught me that in dealing with you I had to deal with a man who played with the button off his foil. Ask any unbiassed man to read the leading articles in the Wellington Evening Press of the 25th' nnd 26th March, the information for which was supplied, by a person not unconnected with the Government, and the leading articles in the New Zealand Times of the 27th and 28th March, of which newspaper you are the political director and inspiter, and then ask that man to give his impression of the nature of the case I should be called upon to answer. The articles teem with falsehood. I knew the case I should have to rebut, and I determined to provide for it. This was not a case governed by any ordinary rules of etiquette. I printed the papers,and they were printed, not for my own use, but for the use of Parliament, notwithstanding your expression of opinion to the contrary. They.will be duly placed before Parliament. You say, “All this was done secretly, without the knowledge of any of your colleagues.” Am I a child ? I had been made aware of the existence of the intrigue against me, in which three members of the Cabinet were engaged, and I determined not to be caught all unprepaved. I knew that you would have full access to the departmental papers in the case you intended to make against me; and do you think I am really such an innocent person as to be so neglectful of my own interests as to leave myself in the position of having to meet you with my hands tied behind my back ? Armed with these papers, I shall meet you on equal terms. I put this general question : Is not every man entitled to the best available defence? These papers were necessary as a defence to the charge foreshadowed in your letter of the Ist April. As to Jackman, how fortunate that I have copies of the papers relating to him. The time for their usefulness was not long in coming, I was simply astounded upon reading his evidence, as published in the newspapers during the hearing of the Junction Brewery oases. How Mr Skerrett got his information I do not know, nor do I care. [Here oocur several pages occupied with voluminous references to a subordinate officer of the Customs, named Jackman, whom Mr Fisher had suspended for making certain charges, alleged to be unfounded, against the Auckland Collector of Customs. The minute of suspension was worded thus : —“ Dispense with Jackman at once. Give him leave of absence till the 10th proximo. Do anything that will get him out of the service of the Government. His conduct is indefensible upon any ground.— Geo. Fisher. 23—8—S8. Mr Fisher proceeds.] I wish to point out that the matters above referred to are far from being extraneons. The importance of their bearing has yet to be seen. It is this s that, acting under certain inspiration, this man subsequently made a most serious charge against myself. The charge is addressed to the Secretary of Customs, and is as follows :

“ Customs, 4th March, 1889, “Sir, —I have the honour to submit to you that I have during the last ten months, lyhile employed in the performance of my duties, be-: come aware of circumstances which in my opinion amount to a strong prima facie case of fraud against the Hon the Commissioner of Trade and Customs (Geo. Fisher, Esq.) while exercising his power as Commissioner, The cases I specially refer to on this occasion are for obstructing the prosecution, under the Beer Duties Act, 1880, @f the Junction Brewery Company and Mr H. Gilmer, both of Wellington, in December last. I beg most respectfully to apply that the Governor will be advised by you t.. appoint a Royal Commision, as provided for in section 55, Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1882.”—I have, &c., “ S. J. Jackman, Officer of Customs, “ To the Secretary of Custom 3 -*’ A copy of thi3 dooument was left at my office by Jackman, when I at once suspended him from his duties. To this day I have never seen the man, and do not know him. I many times refused to see him when he was brought to my office by Mr McKellar, because I re-

garded him as an exceedingly dangerous man. I have said that I suspended him. I did not dismiss him, as under any other circumstances I would have doiie, because I knew that had I done so, unpleasantly surrounded as I was by the influences of Ministerial intrigue, I should have laid myself open to the imputation that I was anxious to get rid of him for other reasons. He was a witness in the Junction Brewery case. I therefore left it to the Premier's sense of propriety to deal with him. I daily expected to hear of his dismissal by the Premier; but Jackman knew he was in safe hands. It is impossible to conceive that he would have dared to make such a charge against a Minister of the Crown’ but for the existence of some strong support from an undisclosed source. Emboldened by a knowledge of the strength of his position, he forwarded the following further communication to the Premier : “Customs, Wellington, 7th March, 18S9. “ Sir, —I beg very respectfully to make an appeal to you against whatl feel to be the unjust and believe to be the unconstitutional conduct of the Hon George Fisher, Esq., the Commissioner of Trade and Customs, in suspending me from duty because, while employed in the execution of my duties as an officer of Customs, I wrote a charge against himself.to the Secretary of Customs, and served him, the Hon George Fisher, with a copy of the same. The printed instructions issued to me for my guidance say, ‘ You are not to do or suffer to be done, abet, or conceal any act or thing prejudicial to the revenue ’—there being no exception made to any one on account of the position, public or private, which the parties concerned may hold. That it is not reasonable to infer that an officer of twenty-six years’ standing, and whp, it must be admitted, has never had to retract a single case of the many cases of fraud which he has reported, should now so far forget himself as to make a charge, however slight or serious, without being able to maintain it, aud especially against one who holds the position of the Commissioner of Trade Customs. “I beg respectfully to state that I have not found in the printed Instructions directions a 3 to how to proceed under present circumstances, and therefore take the liberty of appealing to you.—l have, &c., “S. J. Jackman, “ Officer of Customs (under suspension). “The Hon the Premier, Sir H. Atkinson, K.C.M.G. “Name in full: Samuel James Jackman, No. 2, Kent Villa, Kent-terrace, Wellington.” As to retracting charges, this man has been reprimanded and censured by every Commissioner of Customs and every Collector under whom he has served. The office-file of papers relating to him sufficiently shows what his character is. „ Now, will it be believed that from the date of that letter, the 7th March, that man was in daily direct personal communication with the Premier, became almost his confidential adviser, and is still retained in the service of the Government! -

I leave this matter to the judgment of the Parliament and the public ; and I also, Sir, leave it to others to say whether your conduct or mine is the more scandalous.

G. As to the eight, large questions upon which I differed with the Cabinet, I am glad to learn that you confirm my statement that I on all occasions deferentially submitted to the decision of the Cabinet, because it confirms my former remark that you always gave me credit for great courtesy and and it refutes a common and erroneous impression that I'am_“the impracticable man” with whom nobody can agree. Your testimony upon this point is valuable to me. But again I say I differed with the Cabinet upon the following questions (1) The Railway Board.—You say I was in favour of the appointment of an English expert, as were most of the “ Cabinet.” There you are in error. Most of the Cabinet were not in favour of the appointment of an English expert. In Cabinet! proposed the appointment of Mr Ree as Chief Commissioner of Railways. Only two members of the Cabinet voted for that motion —namely, the Hon. Mr Mitchelson and myself. The peculiar treatment of Mr Ree to which I referred was the constant disparagement of him by certain members of the Cabinet, the object of the disparagement being obvious, although the Government had at tha time jn its possession documents which showed that he was a most capable man, and in every respect fitted for the position of Chief Commissioner of Railways. Having a full knowledge of the contents of those documents—for they arrived from England, aud were in your possession a month and a half before yon spokes—your references to Mr Ree in your speech afc Hawera on the 28th January were unworthy of any person pretending to the standing of » state-man.

(2.) You pass over the matter of the appointment of the Judge with supercilious brevity and affected indifference. No doubt it is with you a tender subject, to be disposed of with all possible celerity. You say that after the appointment was made I never said anything further abcut the matter. That ia quite true. . We Were allso heartily sick of the vacillating indecision of certain members of the Cabinet, and of the ungentlemanly and unfeeling language of two particular members of the Cabinet, that no one cared or dared to refer to the subject again. The use of this unfeeling language, and the overbearing manner of ite authors, marks the date of the beginning of tha disruption of the Cabinet. Surely you do not tell me that you have forgotten all this. . (3.) You speak of the appointment of an En-gineer-in-Chief, or of “ some such appointment,” to which one of two persons was to be promoted. The two persons are very well known, but the situation at different times in regard to this matter became most ludicrous. For instance, the two members of the Cabinet who fought most strenuously fer the appointment of a particular one of the two persons were gentlemen whom I had heard a dozen times say that that particular person was a person who should be “ sacked ” out of the service of the country. These contrarieties or variations in the character of the human mind puzzled and amused me. The question I asked you to submit to Cabinet was, “Does the Colony require the services of these two gentlemen ? ” You changed the issue. You put this question : “ Arethe services: of these two gentlemen to be . “ retained ? ” And it was resolved in the affirmative. Jam billing te believe you when, you say that no appointment has yet been> made to the position of Engineer-in-Chisf ; for, judging from some past experiences in connection with this matter, I should imagine ifc would take the'Cabinet some considerable time yet to recover from the paralysis of volition by which it seemed at one time strangely af-> fected. " .

(4.) and (5.) It is not material to discuss these points evt this particular time. (6.) I ought to have said that I differed with you on the subject of the properVy-tax, and I ought to have explained that neither at your Auckland meeting nor at your Napier meeting was any reference made by you either to the Bill which you now say is being prepai-ed, or to the modifications ya, the Act which were suggested by thq Hon Mr Stevens and myself at the Cabinet meeting to which you refer. It is* triiW that when I joined your Cabinet I said*

nothing specially to you on the subject of the property-tax. There was little time to discuss particular questions then ;but you are in error in saying that you and I have never discussed the subject since. It is impossible you can fail to remember that I addressed a large deputation of Auckland citizens in/April, ISBS, on the question of the property-tax, and that on my return to Wellington we shortly discussed our respective views upon the question. _ (7.) I blame you and the responsib'e Ministers—for there were at the time three Ministers in Auckland —for having, allowed _ the country to drift into the position and. the large and needless expenditure into which it was forced by the movements of Te Koot.i. Any man of firm character, having regard to the interests of the Colony, and especially to the interests of the people of the .East Coast districts, would have prevented Te jKlooti leaving Auckland for the purpose of visiting those districts. I do take some credit, as you say, for having subsequently influenced the Cabinet in passing a resolution to prevent the further advance of Te Kooti upon the East Coast settlements, and to arrest him if necessary—a step which I considered essential in preservation of the interests of a large and valuable body of colonists, whose peacefnl pursuits ought never to have been allowed to be disturbed by the appearance amongst them of such a man as Te Kooti. _ The chief Ropata, in his place in the Legislative Council last session, drew the attention of the Government to the objectionable character of these visits of Te Kooti, and to the dangers that were sure to result from them. (8.) Your defence of your views upon the question of land nationalisation- and pauper farms does not interest me. I have little sympathy with the doctrines of the Socialist and the Communist. I have written and spoken strongly upon the views held upon the subject of land nationalisation by some other prominent politicians in this country, and to view with favour in your case what I viewed with disfavour in their case ivoiild be to lay myself open to a charge of inconsistency of a very undesirable kind. My creed is shqrt and simple. It is this : I regard the Government as a league of men combined for the benefit of the country as a whole, not for the protection of the individual —to advance the interests of the country and of its people by the better development of Its wealth, the better reward of its industry, and the better promotion of its welfare. I believe in the private ownership of land, as I believe in the private ownership of any other description of property'. I also agree with Professor Fawcett and Professor Pollock that private property of every description has its responsibilities to the State. You are mistaken in supposing that I did not discuss these matters with any of my colleagues. I did talk the matter over with one of your colleagues, who dissented from your view and agreed thoroughly with mine. If I, were permitted to make a passing remark in regard to your professed anxiety for the welfare of the people, I should say that if you were to read, study, and act upon the teachings of such works as Besant’s “ Children of Gibeon,’ and of such speeches as Sir Charles Dilke’s at the Forest of Dean and the Marquis of Ripon’s recent speech atLimehouse, you would understand more of the sufferings of the masses, and the means of aileviating those sufferings, than you appear to understand at present. Tms short observation is called forth by your feeble utterances upon the subject of the sweating system in your recent Napier speech. (H.) Referred to in paragraph S. (I.) (J.) (K.) These paragraphs, evidentlj' compiled with the aid and assistance of some lawyer, 'describe with great subtlety the minutise and the complexities of the brewery cases, and with equal unfairness they strain every detail in any desired direction. I am sure we must all feel that, we now know infinitely more about these cases than we ever knew before. I think it extremely probable that if I possessed as mush knowledge of the principles of law as is attributed to me in these paragraphs X should have occupied luy time much more profitably than in filling the thankless office of a Minister of the Grown of the Colony of New Zealand at _LSOO per year. The object of the paragraphs is well defined and palpable, but the facts happily are capable of a very different construction to that placed upon them here. To clear the ground as speedily as possible, let me deal with the simplest of these facts. Throughout, with tedious and painful iteration you dwell upon the fact of “ two perfectly clear cases ’ against the Junction Brewery being lost through my action in delaying the proceedings proposed to be taken against that brewery. You are aware, of course—for you cannot yourself be ignorant of the fact—that the "two perfectly clear cases ” consist of one case of nonentry of fifty sacks malt on the sth SepternIber, The merits of this one doubtful case were not gone into in the Court, but I am informed that it was exactly on all-fours with another case, which was dismissed by the Magistrate becau-e it was discovered that, although the material was not entered on the i3ay upon which it arrived at the wharf, it was entered upon another, a subsequent day, the cbv upon which it arrived from the wharf at the brewery. Surely a mistake so simple as to tender unnecessary any proceedings at Court. So the Magistrate thought, for he dismissed the case without a moment’s hesitation. In this, the « 'doubtful case which you persistently Sn.ignify into "'two perfeclly clear cases, the Charge was laid one way against the Junction Ijtewery, and one way against the secretary of t.he J nnctidn Brewery Company, to avoid all ’-K*-«ihle escape on any technical point that jfjighfc be raised. You know full well that the r-halves were doubled in this way, for when von afterwards wish to excuse your own extraordinary conduct in mitigating the penalties inflicted by the Magistrate up n the Junction Brewery yoa speak of the charges being mi lpated because they have been doubled. S Bat look further at your unfairness and vour deliberate suppression of fact. When the time had passed by, R* we thought, for laying the information in that one particular case, you still spoke in a not unfriendly spirit when we dwcussed l he matter on the mor- mg of th ®Jth Starch. You did not then charge me with deceiving you. Yo.u see we had then passed the sth March, the day upon which, as an nf ;er thou gilt, you now say I f *e c yom 'Yon did eav on the morning of the Bth that it Was unfortunate the time had gone by for layflie information in the one case just referred to'- but I answered thut, as Mr Gilmer was an honourable man, he would not seek on that «*iount to evade any legal responsibility. Do n leaving your room tv\n retiring to my ovrn office 1 sent for Mr Gilmer and put the Point to him that through delay that particular information bad pot been laid, and that it therefore had lapsed. He said that mattered toothing ; he would pay whatever the Government cfesired he should pay en that particular I therefore at once wrote tiu following memorandum, and myself hapded xt to you « your room, to be recorded with tne papers re.iati "f)epa?t e inen S t e orTr a d® and Customs, 1 Wellington, Bth March, 1889, The Hon. the Premier,-" I thus morning fur Mr Gilmer, who still desires to be

allowed to adhere to the terms of his letter to the Commissioner of Customs, and is willing to pay any money-penalty the Government may impose upon him. He will write to the Government to this effect if you wish it.—l have, &c., " Geo. Fisher, " Commissioner of Customs.”

Having placed that letter in your hands, I asked you whether Mr Gilmer should write as he desired, and you answered “ No.”

It is advisable to have before us the exact terms of Mr Gilmer’s principal letter. It is as follows :

“ Wellington, 4th March, ISB9. •‘Sir, —I am aware that it is the intention of the Customs Department to make charges against the Junction Brewery Company for not entering material received and for not entering beer delivered in the books of the Customs. What the exact charges may be I do not know, but I would like to have permission to say that the business of th 6 brewery is not practically supervised by me, but is wholly supervised by the secretary of the Company. I know nothing of the practical management of the brewery, and if in the management of the business there have been any negligent or inadver* tent omissions, or any violations of the law, whether inadvertent or not, I must express my sorrow and regret. lam willing to make any restoration rather than be subjected to the harassing proceedings of the law, and am willing to pay any penalty or fine you may impose, in addition to making good any deficiency in duty. lam also willing to leave the case unreservedly in your hands, and to accept your determination, whatever it may be, as a final decision in the case.—l have, &c., "Hamilton Gilmer,

‘'Managing Director, Junction Brewery “ Company. “ The Hon the Commissioner of Customs.” One other special point I wish to refer to here. You say, On the 23rd February Hamilton having been convicted, you informed Mr Glasgow, the Acting Secretary of Customs, by minute, in reply to a written request by him to be allowed to proceed with the" Junction Brewery prosecution, that there was no need for precipitancy in the matter. That wa3 within ten days of the time within which it would he possible to lay an information.” I used the words “ no need for precipitancy ” because, as you correctly point out, there was yet ten dass to spare. As I have before explained in my letter of the 6th April, I was anxiously awaiting your return frdm the Te Kooti expedition to discuss the subject with you. Ten days left time enough to discuss it. Te Kooti was captured oc the 28th February, and there was yet ample time to discuss the matter with you had you returned to Wellington from Napier instead of going across the oountry to Wanganui. At a later part of this paragraph I have dealt very fully with the subject of my conversation with you at the Wanganui telegraph office. Now let us go back to the afternoon of the 4th March. I am positive I mentioned to Cabinet that that was the last day for laying the information. I think it likely, too, that Mr Glasgow, during his long cross-examina-tion by the Hon Mr Hislop, mentioned that that was the last day. And if he did not, why did he not ? He was the officer, you say, who wa3 so eager to proceed, and he ought to have mentioned that, if he mentioned nothing else. If I did not know that that was the last day for laying the information why did I do these four things : (1) Why did I convene the Cabinet meeting on that day ? (2) Why, when the Cabinet meeting was over, did I send Mr Smith, my private secretary, to the Resident Magistrate’s Court to inquire whether it was too late to lay the information ? (3) Why did" I direct the Telegraph anthorities to discover, if they could, in what part of the country you were ? (4) And why, when your whereabouts was discovered, did I ask you, as a matter of urgency, to come to the instrument at the Wanganui Telegraph Office to consult with me upon the case ?

And judge of my chagrin and disappointment, when you came to the instrument at the Wanganui office at S p.m., I being at the instrument at the Wellington office, upon finding that you absolutely refused to discuss the matter that evening, because, as you said, you had to keep a private appointment. You positively refused to discuss the matter until 9 o’clock next morning, and so we parted. I wished to tell you my trouble and seek your counsel and advice, for I really was sorry the time had gone by, as I thought, for laying the information in the one case already referred to. , I am not a legal practitioner, and knew nothing about the time for laying informations. But now what do we learn? That it is "a flimsy excuse ” to say that the hour had passed for laying the information, for a note to Mr Bell for a telephonic message to his office would have settled the m atter. Then howimportant that the Premier of the Colony, who now charges this as part of a dishonour* able proceeding, should have devoted a few moments to the discussion of a question, as you now describe it, of “vital public jmportance”—“a question of agravity which it is impossible to exaggerate ” —instead of excusing himself for refusing to attend to it on the ground that he had to keep a private appointment ! I naturally felt very niuoh hurt. I had a right to claim the advice and assistance of the Premier of the Colony under such circumstances ; anrl now to make a charge against me arising out of your own laches is to my mind simply disgraceful. _ln the morning a telegraphic communication in a Wellington newspaper announced that Sir Harry Atkinson had on the previous evening attended a banquet at Wanganui. When I saw that this private appointment had been the means of placing me in a position of very great difficulty, I felt much annoyed that although I had promised to meet the Premier again at the instrument at 9 o’clock that morning, I did not do so, but sent him instead this telegram : “ sth March, ISB9, 9 a.m. “I make no further request. Haye placed my views on record. Will wait your arrival. _ „ “ Geo, Fisher,”

A meeting then was futile. The 4th March had gone by. There was then no need to go to the telegraphio office, except to express annoyance which that telegram expresses. As to your remark that at the Cabinet meeting of the 4th I had not all the papers ready for any action the Gabiuet might decide upon, it is only necessary to say that all that was required to be done was to lay an information for not entering 50 sacks of malt on the sth September, 1888.

But, as I have said at the beginning of this paragraph, every one of us is now very much more enlightened in regard to these oases than we were a few weeks ago. We had not then begun this subtle contest. Every one can now tell the particular moment at which each particular thing should have been done. Yet, while we layman were groping for information, see how easily an able lawyer mistook the position in regard to one important matter. About the 13th March I met Mr Bell accidentally, when he voluntarily informed me that, after all, everything was all right regarding the cases, that one had lapsed, and that all could be proceeded for. On my way to Auckland, thinking this would be a serviceable piece of information for Sir Frederick Whitaker, who had to consider the papers connected with the cases, I telegraphed to Mr Bell, asking whether I had, understood him aright, that all the offences could be proceeded for, and he answered — " 15th March, 1889. 11 You understood aright. No information has lapsed, and all offences will be proceeded for. —11. D. Bell, Crown Solicitor.” Subsequently Mr Bell telegraphed that the Magistrate had decided against him in the one case to which his telegram principally referred. Imerelv refer to this circumstance to illustrate the point that if Mr Bell could be mistaken in judgment on any matter connected with these cases, how easy was it for a layman to be equally mistaken ! It is important to remember that all the other cases against the same defendant have since been disposed of, the defendant being fined £460, and his brewing plant being ordered by the Magistrate to be forfeited to the Crown.

A strong prejudice was created against me at the beginning through the erroneous impression having got abroad that through some act of mine all the charges against the Junction Brewery had lapsed. It will be seen that my whole offence i 3 that one charge, relating to the non-entry of fifty sacks malt, lapsed ; and in that case Mr Gilmer made a second, a special offer, to make good the deficient duty, in addition to any fine the Government might impose—an offer which, as has b?en seen, the Premier ignored. No other charge against the Junction Brewerv has lapsed, or could, under any circumstances, lapse, as the n,ext information need not be laid before the 3rd April, and I had already brought the whole subject before Cabinet on the 4th March. On the 13th March I gave written instructions to proceed In all the remaining cases, and, as just mentioned, convictions were obtained. I ask, then, is it not preposterously absurd to say jthat the omission to make entry of the receipt of 50 sacks of malt in a brewer’s book was sufficient to create a Ministerial situation justifying the use of such language as this : “We felt that it would be dishonorable to sanction what you had done, and that we could not continue to retain you as a colleague ?” It is a trick in the Californian Legislature to avoid the main question, and to elaborate an attack upon a minor point, in this way. I have already referred to wbat the main points of difference in my case are. Contrasted with the brewery cases, I hope the acts of some present members of the Government may not give them .equally rigid qualms when those acts come to be inquired into. I agree that these brewers’ frauds cannot in themselves be said io form any very heroic issue. I have expressed my opinion to the effect that they are subsidiary—even trumpery. An eminent person to whom I have submitted the whole question considers it “subterfuge” and “ nonsense.” I think I shall be able to show presently that it is subterfuge and nonsense. In your remarks introductory to this paragraph vou tell me that in what you are going to say “I know that I represent pretty accurately tne opinions of all your late colleagues.” Let us test the accuracy of this statement. On the Bth March you told me you had sent the papers connected with the case to the Hon. Mr Stevens and the Hon. Sir Frederick Whitaker, because, the Hon. Mr Richardson and the Hon. Mr Mitchelson being in my favour, and the Hon. Mr Hislop and the Hon. Mr Fergus being against me. you wished to have the opinion of the full Cabinet upon the question. The opinion of the Hon, Mr Stevens, I am informed, was to this effect : that he had always been of opinion that the portfolio of Commissioner of Customs should be attached to that of Colonial Treasurer ; that he thought these portfolios should now be placed under tli6 charge of one Minister ; but that no reflection should be oast upon Mr Fisher. I am also informed that the opinion of the. Hon. Mr Stevens had the effect of making you very cross, because, as I gather, it cut direct against the intrigue originated by the Hon Mr Hißlop and the Hon Mr Fergus to oust me from the Ministry. You had not the courtesy or the honour to allow me to see the Hon Mr Stevens’ opinion. I then went to Auckland to discuss the matter with Sir Frederick Whitaker. When Sir Frederick had decided upon the form of his opinion he read it to me in his office. It was to the effect that the Commissioner of Customs had acted wrongly in many ways, but it concluded with a paragraph eouched in general terms, the purport of which was this : that the Commissioner had not acted corruptly or in a manner deserving condemnation. That I believe to be its purport. And as to the matters in regard to which, in Sir Frederick's opinion, I had acted wrongly, a minute was added by Sir Frederick to the effect that I vvaa t» have the right to explain those matters to the Premier upon my arrival in Wellington. Again I say that, as a matter of honour, that opinion should have been submitted to me upon my arrival in Wellington, in accordance with Sir Frederick Whitaker’s desire, so that I might explain the points upon which explanation was required ; but, as in the case of the Hon Mr Stevens’ opinion, it was withheld from me.

This was quite of a piece with your discussions of the general subject in Cabinet in my absence, lam assured that had the matter been discussed in full Cabinet, and in my presence, a different result would finally have been arrived at; but it was frequently and principally discussed with none present but yourself, the Hon Mr Hislop, and the Hon Mr Fergus, and the hostility and the unfairness of these two gentlemen towards me is now very well and generally under* stood. It is true I said I would not again meet the Hon Mr Hislop to discuss the particular brewery case, but when it came to discussing my honour and my position in the Ministry I had every right to claim to be present to protect myself against the influence of that malignant spirit which had manifested itself in such a wanton and cruel manner in the cases respectively of Mr Justice Ward and Mr C. Y. O’Connor. I knew that as had been the manner of their treatment behind their back so, in the case of Buch colleagues, would be the manner of my treatment behind my back. I, too, wish to make a short recapitulation of the facts connected with the Junction Brewery cases. The sequence of my instructions was this : On the 7th December I sent a telegram to Mr McKellar, Secretary of Customs, asking him to stay proceedings in Gilmer’s case until my return to Wellington. On the 10th December, as a result of a communication from the Hon Mr Hislop, I again wired to Mr McKellar, “ Refer Gilmer’s matter to Hon Mr Hislop,” On the 12th December the Hon Mr Hislop ordered the prosecutions to proceed. On the 14th, on my arrival in Wellington, I saw MiBell at his office, when he mentioned to me a small case against Staples’ Brewery for not entering four or five sacks of malt, which it was proposed not to go on with. This case is quite distinct from the larger Staples cases, which was settled by Mr Glasgow on the 21st September. 1 said that all cases must go on. I then returned to my office, and gave Mr McKellar instructions to proceed in all oases. Mr McKellar, in his telegram to me of the 14th December, confirms this. As to my first interview with Mr* Bell at his office on the 14th December, Mr JBell, in his letter to you of the 10th April, says, “ I think Mr Fisher did say that he would not care as “ long as all were dealt with alike.” But he says that was notan “ instruction ” by the Commissioner of Customs. Ido not attach any importance to this refinement of language. For me it is sufficient that Mr Bell says I wished all to bo dealt with alike. On the 17th December I saw Mr Bell at his private house in connection with a pending action against me in the Supreme Court, Dunedin. I had been to Mr Bell’s house on the same matter on two or three previous Sundays. It was the only day I had free to attend to my own private business. On this particular oocasion the Junction Brewery matter was incidentally mentioned ; but what the terrible secret is that Mr Bell possesses I jdo not know. I said that Mr Gilmer was an honourable and a kindly man—Lsay so everywhere and always j and I was sorry he was in any trouble, because he was a man who constantly assisted in oases of distress in the town. He and. I had been brought together in assisting in many such cases. I think £ mentioned that I considered he was being persecute! by Mr McCarthy, for the papers in the case showed this ; but, whether I said so or not, I thought so,' as still do numbers of other people in the City of Wellington. Mr Bell is again correct when, in his letter to you, he says that “ there was no reason why the cases against the Junction Brewery Bhould not be delayed until the others had been dealt with.” There really was no reason in the world why they should not be delayed, but the “[secrecy,” and the “mystery,” and the “concealment ” is certainly at this moment a very great mystery to me. The natural inference to be drawn from language employed in this mystic and suggestive form is that I made some corrupt and improper proposal to Mr Bell, and that Mr Bell, consenting to act in concert with me in the carrying out of this corrupt and improper proposal swerved from the strict line of his official duty as Crown Solicitor. If that is not what is meant then language ceases to have any meaning. This is Mr Bell’s letter, written as the result of our incidental conversation :

“ Wellington, 18th December, 1888. “Sir, —I think it may he as well to proceed with the informations against Hamilton and Edmonds at present, and to lay no information against the otherß complained of till after the cases have been decided on Friday. I shall therefore delay further informations unless you instruct me to the con. trary.—l have, &c., “ H. D. Bell, Crown Prosecutor. “ The Collector of Customs, Wellington.”

The letter is simple enough. To my mind it reveals no trace of any motive upon which can be founded any unworthy imputation. Delays took place, but Mr Bell himßelf, in his letter fco you of the 10th April, furnishes this explanation of the cause of delay ; “At that time it was supposed that these cases would be dealt with in the course of a week at most; but the engagements of the magistrate and of counsel were afterward found to be so constant on other matters, and the evidence was so protracted, that unexpected delays occurred.” This mystery, indeed, resembles “ that unpleasant feeling which was created in the minds of several members of the Cabinet,” who positively and absolutely knew nothing whatever about the cases at the date at which the unpleasant feeling is attributed to them by you. And so as to “the Cabinet, myself, and the Acting. Secretary of Customs being all anxious that the cases should proceed, and that ho steps were taken.” Is it not a fact, sir, that Ministerially you controlled agood deal of the busineasof the Customs Department? And, if you were anxious about this matter, as you pretend you were, was it not your duty, as a colleague of mine, to have mentioned your anxiety to me, and to have put me right in any matter in which you thought me wrong ? Did you do so ? No. But this is like the reason yon gave for not appointing Mr Justice Ward to the Judgeship—a reason of which you were totally oblivious at the time you decided in your own mind that Mr Justice Ward should not be appointed.

You speak frequently of my friendship for Mr Gilmer. “All this is unfortunate/’ you say, “considering your friendship for Mr Gilmer,” whom “you have thus attempted to screen.” Nowhere in your letter do you make the slightest reference to your friend . Mr McCarthy, whose brewery is never inspected or reported upon, and who could, if he chose, defraud the revenue more than all the other brewers in Wellington put together, because he. of them all, is the only one who has a malthouse attached to his brewery, Upon my return from Melbourne in December I found . that Mr McCarthy pervaded the Customs Department and the records of the Customs Department—so much so that on one occasion I felt compelled to inform the Acting-Secretary of Customs that “ Mr Fisher, not Mr McCarthy, is Commissioner of Customs, aud Mr Fisher, not Mr McCarthy, will in future direct the officers of the department in carrying out the provisions of the Beer . Duty Act." In your telegram to me of the sth March, from Wanganui, you are good enough to tell me that Mr McCarthy had spoken to you about “ the frauds that were going on, and that he was going to give you hints hew to prevent frauds by other brewers.” A creditable position for Mr McCarthy to take up, truly ! Now, as your colleague, it was clearly your duty, when you hod received this information, to have informed me of it at the time. It related to the administration of my department. Did you so inform me : No. You receive hints and suggestions from outside persons upon matters concerning the administration of my department—you, the person who now make pretence that you had undergone so much anxiety in connection with these mattersr— and you never, or any single occasion, say a word to me about them. All I can say is* that, if that is your conception of what is due from one colleague to another, it is certainly a strange conception. Did you at any time tell me that you or the officers of the department were aware that frauds were being committed under the Beer Duty Act? Never. When you were aware —as you now Bay you were aware—that I had failed or neglected to take action in these cases, did you remonstrate, or make any personal represen’ation to me of any kind ? Never. What does this argue ? Loyalty to a colleague? No. Upright, [straightforward conduct? No. It argues that you knew nothing of the matter whatever, or thought nothing of the matter whatever, until your mind was prejudiced by the Hon. Mr Hislop and the Hon. Mr Fergus, who built up these cases ; their effort to oust me from the Ministry. And, when you talk of my having deceived you, let me call your attention to this fact. Speaking of the decision of the Cabinet of the 4th March, “ that the prosecutions must be instituted,” you use these works: —“You telegraphed to tne on the the same day, asking my assent to your settling the oase out of Court. - I replied that the information should be laid.” The Cabinet meeting was held on the 4th. I telegraphed to you on the 4th, at 7.40 p.m. You replied,you say, that “the information should be laid." Did yon telegraph that ' reply on the 4th J No ; you replied on the sth, not on the 4th, which in this case makes an important difference. But I do not un-generously-accuse you of deception. It is possible that in writing your letter you have inadvertently fallen into error. So then in my case. I frankly acknowledge that I ought not to have said in my telegram of the sth, “A brewery prosecution against a man’ named Hamilton has resulted in infliction , of a penalty of £100.” That is incorrect, but I absolutely repudiate any imputation of a deliberate desire to deceive. We sit down now and calmly review the whole proceedings, but you would allow, if you were a man possessed of a spark of generosity, that the telegram was written under a-feeling of great haste and anxiety. I wrote the telegram in Mr Glasgow’s presence. He.at least should be able to say whether the proceedings of that afternoon were ourrounded by haste and anxiety. What I meant to convey was, that the Hamilton case had resulted ultimately in a mitigated penalty of £IOO ; for Mr Glasgow's recommendation to mitigate, and my concurrence, were already minuted on the papers. I therefore resent your imputation that the intention to mitigate was only “in my mind.’- Bat, apart from this, the actual positional Hamilton’s|matter was very plainly expressed in my telegram to you of next day, which said, ‘.‘Glasgow, in report on Hamilton’s case, says £IOO ia highest penalty that can be imposed.” That is the form of words in which I Bhould have expressed myself in the first telegram. I hardly think I shall be believed to be such a poltroon as to stoop to the petty deception you impute to me. Mr Glasgow, too, has evidently had a terrible drilling at your hands. He told me before I left office that you and the Hon. Mr Hislop had given him a dreadful talking-to for having made the recommendation in Hamilton’s case. I thought it great presumption on the part of the Hon. Mr Hislop, or any other Minister, to give an officer of my department “ a dreadful talking-to.” As chargeß of corruption are being strewn broadcast, I think I ought to charge Mr Bell with corruption, in agreeing with Mr Jellicoe to accept £2OO from Hamilton, when the Magistrate had inflicted a total fine of £250 upon him. This ib absurd, but we are dealing with absurdities. (L.) This paragraph relates principally to the statement that Mr Glasgow's recommendation in the Junction case, and my minute, were written on the papers after Cabinet had decided that the ‘ Junction Brewery was to be prosecuted. “This fact was, of course, known to you, but unknown to Mr Glasgow.’’ Now see how this house of cards tumbles to the ground. “Mr Glasgow warned you that the time for . laying the information would expire on the 4th March. . . . . Mr Glasgow knew that the Junction Brewery was the worst of the three offenders. | , Now let me call your attention to these facts : Mr Glasgow knew that the Cabinet had met to consider the matter on the 4th March, because he was at the meeting to undergo that fearful and wonderful crossexamination. He, at all events, should and must have known that the information oould be laid on that day, because a note to

he Crown Solicitor, or a telephonic message to his office, would have insured the information being laid before a Justice of the Peace at any time that afternoon or evening. Mr Glasgow is a man whp understands his business, He is not a man from whom you would expect or accept any “excuse of a flinasy description." Yet I told him I was in a difficulty (and I am quoting your words) “ you asked him whether he could not make some suggestion to get us out of this difficulty. 1 ' The difficulty was that I had sent to the Court and found it closed.

Now, if Mr Glasgow knew the information had to be laid on the 4th March—and of course he knew that ; if he knew it could be done by sending a note or telephonic message to the Crown Solicitor and not being a designing and sinister person, he will not say that he did not know that ; if he knew we were in a difficulty, and, as you say, I asked him whether he could not make some suggestion to get us out of the difficulty, why did he not at once say, “ Why not lay the information? That will get you out of the difficulty. It can be done at any time this afternoon or evening, before a Justice of the Peace ?” Did he say, “Send a note or a telephonic message to the Grown Solicitor ? ’ No, By no suggestion of any kind did he refer to any of these things. I told him we were in a difficulty, and after full consideration ha sat down and this memorandum : “If a substantial payment by way of fine were exaoted the necessity for action at law might be averted. This would also save the department from the chance of defeat upon some technical point. I therefore propose that the sum of £2OO be demanded as satisfaction for the offences referred to.” I cannot say whether or not Mr Glasgow was aware that the information could be laid at any hour of the evening before a Justice of the Peace. If he was aware he did not say so. The simple explanation is that all this is pure afterthought. I know two simple things now : I now know that you can lay an information of this kind at any hour of the day or night befpre a . Justice of the the Peace, and I abo now know that you can ascertain at what particular hour of the day any particular letter is posted at the post-office. During the hearing of my own case in Dunedin Mr Bell and|femarrelled at this last wonderful when we had discovered it everybody wondered that we did not know it before. The simple explanation ofjMr Glasgow’s recommendation is that I sent my private secretary, Mr Smith, to ascertain whether the Court was open and whether the information could be laid, we being under the impression that it must be laid at the Court. We found the Court was closed. Ido not remember whether I told Mr Glasgow that I had sent to the Court, and that it was closed, but Ido remember that I told Mr Glasgow, as you say, that we were in a difficnlty, and I also remember that Mr Glasgow did not say, as you with your wondrous judgment now say, it would have been the easiest aud simplest thing in the world to Bend a note or a telephonic message to the Crown Solicitor, and the thing was done. These easy solutions only occur to great minds—after the event. (M.) This paragraph contains your remarks upon what you term my unwilling acquiescence in the decisions of the Cabinet and the recommendations of the officers of the Customs Department upon the beer-duty prosecutions. Does it matter whether £ acquiesced willingly or unwillingly ? I acquiesced. That is sufficient. And here are my written instructions to the officers of the department to proceed. “ Department of Trade and Customs, “Wellington, 13th March, 1889, “Mr Glasgow,—l hope you will expedite the proceedings in the Junction Brewery cases. lam now desirouß that these cases should be fully gone into. —Geo. Fisher.” That instruction covered all cases except the one case for non-entry of fifty sacks malt, which has furnished the subject for so much abuse aud defamation.

I am quite aware that “the Staples Brewery case is not one of the group of brewery cases of which the Junction Brewery formß one.” Mr McCarthy graciously did not insist that Staples’ Brewery should be persecuted. He said he did not wish to punish Hamilton too severely, and he was not desirous that Staples should be at all harshly dealt with : but I will produce at least four people to whom Mr McCarthy Baid that he would “ have ” the Junction Brewery, meaning that he would crush or destroy the Junction Brewery. The Customs papers and other evidence show in a most unmistakable manner that Ills energies were bent upon “having” the Junction Brewery, and I assure you, sir, he is greatly annoyed with you for not forfeiting the Junction Brewery plant after the convictions were obtained. He regards the present result as “ much cry and little wool.” Why you did not forfeit the plant I cannot understand, iu the faoe of all the expressions you use in regard to that brewery in your letter to me of the 23rd April. I shall presently contrast those strong expressions with the unaccountably feeble action which followed their use. You say, “ The Staples case never came before the Cabinet in any way, or before any Minister.” That is exactly what I complain of. “ The permanent officers were satisfied that there had been no fraud.” A brewer defrauds the revenue to the amount of £49 5s 6d by neglecting to pay duty on 73 hogsheads of beer, the perofficers accept payment of the duty, say nothing about it to anybody, and no prosecution is instituted. I hardly know how to characterise your criticism of these caseß. I mustagaiucallyour attention to these dates. The Junction Brewery is charged with not entering in their books 50 sacks of malt received on the sth of September. The lapsing of this case is the whole and sole grounffthat constitutes my offence, although the Junction Brewery, not wishing to escape payment of duty, sent a letter to the Premier on the Bth March offering to pay it, and the Premier refused to accept it. On the 21st September—sixteen days later—the permanent officers accept payment of £49 5a 6d for an offence committed by Staples’ Brewery on the 13th of September, and no prosecution iB ordered. An offence is committed by the Junction Brewery on the sth September which results in great commotion

and disruption. A much more serious offence is committed by Staples' Brewery on the 13th September, and it is settled by the permanent officers on the 21st September without any reference to the Commissioner of Customs. And, when these two cases are brought together and contrasted, the Premier refuses to see what . a specially aggravated case this latter case is. Woe to me ifl, as Commissioner, had settled such a case without reference te the Cabinet; but the permanent officers may settle it without reference to the Commissioner or to anybody else, I confess I never before heard of such s thing. I complain of this exceptional leniency shown to some brewers and the rigorous severity dealt out to others. Had all been treated alike I should have had nothing to say. I wished all to be treated one way or the other, so long as they were dealt with upon one principle. I have Bhown how Staples was treated. McCarthy’s brewery is exempted from all inspection and examination because Mr McCarthy i 3 privileged to hold private and friendly communications with the Premier.

(0.) (P.) I again say that, except to ratify Mr Glasgow’s recommendation in Hamilton’s case, I had nothing whatever to do with the case from first to last. I regard all your laboured arguments in this oase with the utmost indifference. The papers when laid before Parliament will show that Mr Bell, in a letter to Mr Glasgow, pointed out that if ■ the Government did not accept £2OO in lieu of £250 Hamilton would go to prison. Mr Glasgow recommended that settlement. Subsequently on the petition for mitigation, Mr Glasgow wrote an elaborate recommendation ending with the statement that £IOO wbb the highest penalty that could be imposed. The petition aud the recommendation are in print, and will be laid before Parliament. I had no communication, verbal or otherwise, i with Mr Glasgow, in regard to his recommendation. You say I “ did not think it worth while to take the Crown Solicitor’s advice upon the point.” Why should I run about after the Crown Solicitor? When Mr Glasgow brought me his recommendation, I said, “ Have you consulted the Law Officers of the Crown upon this recommendation?” He said “he had not, and did not think it necessary to do so, as he was quite certain about it, and did not wish to be made unhappy in his mind by having doubts created.” Then I said, “If you are satisfied, I will write the words ‘I concur in this recommendation.’ ’’ I wrote the words, and that is the beginning and the end of my connection with the case. The statement that I informed Cabinet on the 4th March that Hamilton’s fine was reduced to £IOO in accordance with an arrangement entered into between Mr Bell and Mr Jellicoe is a distinct misrepresentation. The arrangement between Mr Bell and Mr Jellicoe related to the reduction of £SO, and I said so. Mr Bell’s letter shows that so clearly that when it is laid before Parliament your insinuations will be swept away like chaff before the wind. I have already acknowledged, and I again acknowledge, that the statement in my telegram that “a brewery prosecution against a man named Hamilton has resulted in infliction of a penalty of £100" was erroueous, but I sav also again that that statement was corrected or rectified by my telegram to you next day. But why do you, of all people, complain ? You received that telegram on the evening of the 4th, and, so far from it induoing you to take any erroueous or mistaken steps, you did nothing, and would do nothing. You would not oven discuss anything, because of the private appointment you had to keep. The possibility of any act of yours having any effect upon the non-entry of fifty sacks of malt disap. peared with the disappearance of the 4th March; and you would do nothing on the 4th March, because of your private appointment. Let me put the point plainly : Did you take any erroneous step, or did you do or perform anything, as the consequence of my deceiving you, as younow call it ? AH you said next day was simply shooting at the stars. As to the reduotion of £IOO “being as yet only jn your mind," I had at that time approved of Mr Glasgow’s recommendation—that Is all.

Q. This paragraph expresses your annoy, anoe at my acquiescence in the decisions of the Cabinet, and you petulantly say that it was only when you took the matter out of my hands that I acquiesced, because I was unable further to resist. I have already referred, in paragraph M. to my written instructions to proceed with the cases in accordance with the decision of Cabinet, I myself became particularly anxious that they should be gone into when I found that three of my own colleagues, behind my back, were attributing to me improper and unworthy motives. Then, from your vituperative arsenal you produce a choice volley of phrases for the benefit of the Junction Brewery. That particular brewery is “the worsa of the three cases.” “It is the worst offender of them all.” “ It has been guilty of systematic fraud.” “It has perpetrated a series of gross frauds.” “They were very gross and obvious Jfrauds.” The “ offenders must be brought to justice.” “ The offender must be made to take the consequence of his fraudulent acts.” “ The event [in the Resident Magistrate's Court] has proved all these charges to be right.” These are phrases selected from your letter. Until I read your letter I had no idea that the cases against the Junction Brewery were bo bad. I now agree, upon your own statements and upon your own showing, that no penalty could be too severe. The Magistrate though so too, and said so. He fined the defendant £460, and ordered the forfeiture of all his beer, plant, and utensils. A wellmeritedsentence, one would say, after reading your charges and your letter—-the letter of the 23rd April which you sent to me. The Colony has been made to resound with the enormity of the offences of this Junotion Brewery Company. And what have you done—you, sir, who have denounced the fraudulent,conduct of this systematic offender as infamous, and who have displaced a colleague whose conduct in connection with these oases you pretend you could not in Parliament defend ? Yon have mitigated the penalties inflicted by the Magistrate by the Bum of £IOO, and have handed back to this “ worst offender of them all,” all his beer,

brewing plant, and utensils which were ordered by the Magistrate to be forfeited to the Crown. Who now is infamous ? Was there ever presented to the world a more pitiable, a more reprehensible spectacle? Wherenow isyour honour and your honesty ? Where now are your great public professions ? What now becomes of your boastful clamour for justice and r : ght? The law triumphed, as you wished it to triumph, and you deliberately, and for purposes of your own, throw away all you professed to have fought for. Why put the Court, the Crown Solicitor, the witnesses, the defendant, the public, to all this trouble and expense for such a result. ? For what result ? To give back to a man whom you denounced as a systematic defrauder of the revenue, the plant and material with which he carried on his systematic fraud. And further, mark this : Having it now in your power to do so, you did' not compel him to pay either fine or duty on the offence for non-entry of the 50 sacks malt. Truly a memorable conclusion for men to marvel at. What is gained by the result ? Undying strife and hatred engendered for what ? Mr Gilmer, in his letter to the Government, offered to pay any penalty a Magistrate could compel him to pay. He placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the Government. If the Government had aßked him to £3OO or £4OO, by the terms of his letter he was bound to pay it. But do not let us be misled. The present result is not the result intended. It was only when public sentiment became shocked by the merciless persecution being practised against this man that the spirit of the craven replaced the grip of the oppressor. If it were not for the sickening hypocrisy of the thing it would be intensely amusing to hear you say that “the defendants have expressed their satisfaction at the consideration and leniency shown them.” Have you forgotten the charge you made against me ? It is this : “ You interfered in one case, and in one case only, with the course of justice, and this one offender you attempted to screen was not only the worst offender of them all, but also, as it turned out, a personal friend of your own,” Here is “the worßt offender of them all." It is you now, not I, who have screened him from the full effect of the course of justice. Why? Because, aB I have already said, the public mind was becoming shocked at the revengeful persecution to whioh this man.was being subjected, and you shrank from the natural consequences of the cruelty you were practising. I told Mr Bell that this was no ordinary prosecution—that it was au extraordinary persecution. I knew what were the moving influences working from behind. I knew that Mr McCarthy.had publicly declared that he would crush the Junction Brewery—that he would have it closed; and that he had used other language of a similar kind. When Mr Gilmer threw himself upon the clemency of the Commissioner of Customs, feeling that he was in the grasp of merciless persecutors who would stop at nothing, and offered to pay any fine a Magistrate could impose upon him, I felt that in common justice nothing more should be demanded of him, and I desired to particularly discuss the subject with you. Even in the lapsed case of non-entry of fifty saoks malt he offered'payment of fine and duty, which you refused to accept. Why should not the duty in this one case have been accepted, as it was accepted in Staples’ case? Evidently because you had secretly determined in your own mind to base upon the non-entry a charge against me. (R.) My answer to the.stateinent that Mr Gilmer is a personal friend of my own is that he is a common friend in the sense that he and I have been brought together in rendering assistance in many eases of pitiful distress in this city. The fact that we have been brought together in this way or in any similar way is, I presume, to a person of your cast of mind, sufficient ground upon which to base a charge gof collusion. As to the nonsense about the Government being impeached for the omission on the part of a brewer to enter 50 sacks malt in his book, I think it much more likely that the Government will be impeached on several other much more serious matters which will ‘ ‘ come out upon inquiry, if not in debate ” (S.) This paragraph deals with my alleged differences with my colleagues. I cheer, fully quota from it this passage: “Of course I am not denying that there were differences of opinion between you and me, and between you and other members of the Cabinet ; but what I say is, that they were not more serious or more marked than the ordinary differences which inevitably aiise between independent men who attempt to act together, and we were all of opinion that they had as they arose been amicably settled, and that the settlement had been cheerfully accepted by you." Amidst all your reiterations I am glad you roiterate this statement, because gladly I bold out to the world this proof that Mr Fisher is not the “impracticable man" some persons persistently represent him.to be. Throughout I have treated the deliberations of the Cabinet and the opinions of its members with great deference and respect, always remembering that, as a member of the Cabinet, I was merely a unit in an impersonal whole. Yon have indeed frequently given me credit for exhibiting great courtesy and forbearance, and I thank you for this further tribute to the pacific and peaceful nature of my general bearing in Cabinet. (T.) It is hardly necessary now to discuss this matter further. I have the knowledge that rq.y case was discussed at meetings of Cabinet at which Messrs Hislop, Fergus, Mitchelson, Richardson, and yourself wore present, but from which I was absent, and at meetings at which none but yourself and Messrs Hislop and Fergus were present. Again 1 say I have particularly good reason for making the statement that had the matter been discussed in full Cabinet, and in my presence, a different result would have been arrived at. But I raise this question : I was a member of the Government, having the right to be present at every Cabinet meeting to protect myself against wilful or unintentional misrepresentation. Was it fair or honourable to discuss such an important matter affecting me in my absence ? I objected to meet the Hon Mr Hislop to discuss again with him

that particular brewery case. The question of my resignation from the Ministry was a question transcending in importance any question relating to breweries or brewers. (U.) (V.) (W.) I have already gone over this ground at very considerable length . (X.> I also must enter a strong protest agaiust the statements contained in your concluding paragraph.-,? I am sure his Ex-, cellency the Administrator will do me the justice to believe that I would be the last person in the world to offer him any disrespect. His Excellency is too much respected to admit of the possibility of any act of discourtesy or disrespect being offered to him by even the meanest of her Majesty’s subjects in this Colony. It is true that a hundied copies of my reply to you were printed on Saturday, the 6th April ; but for what purpose ? I had already suffered sufficiently by the dissemination of the slanders promulgated by you; and, if proof is needed of what those Blander 3 are, one has only to read your letter to me of the 23rd April, to which I am now replying. His Excellency was engaged in the discharge of bis official duties in a part of the Colony far from the seat of Government, and, although upon the dictum of Gladstone's “Kin beyond Sea,” a Premier is bound upon his honour not to falsely and basely discredit a colleague in his communications with the Crown, ho being the only Minister having direct access to the Crown, I knew, and you now yourself tell me, that you had made communications to his Excellency the Administrator of a nature highly injurious to me. I had , no means of counteracting the effect of your slanders and of refuting them, except by making known the nature of my answers to the slanders. And then, the printed copies of my reply were not, as you say, “ distributed iu a promiscuous manner.” They were sent to members of Parliament only, and not even to all of them, for there was not a sufficient number of copies for all. As to the publication of a resume of my reply, that resumd was published as is published a r&sumd of the Queen’s Speech hefore the delivt ry of the Speech from the Throne. The public knew that you had put certain statements into circulation; they knew that I had made a reply. They desired some indication of the nature of that reply. What you desired, I assume, was that there should be no public answer to your public slanders. I- have already told you very plainly what 1 thought of the leading ai'tioles published iu the elliugton Evening Press of the 25th and 26th March, at a time when I was absent from Wellington, the material for which was furnished by a person not unconnected with the Government, and of the leading articles published in the New Zealand Times of the 27th and 28th March, also published during my absence from Wellington, the material for which was furnished by you. The substance of all these articles was telegraphed to the Christchurch Press and the Otago Daily Times by the person who is editor of the New Zealand Times—a person who is in constant and daily communication with you. The substance of the articles in the Wellington Evening Press was published in influentialnewspapersin Australiaby aperson in Wellington who is the New Zealand correspondent of those newspapers. And while you were secretly slandering me in every direction, you think it fitting that I should stand tongue-tied and with my hands bound. This is your view of what you consider fair and honourable. If any act of mine is construed as being in any degree disrespectful to bis Excellency the Administrator, I here tender to him the fullest aud most sincere apology ; but I will oonsent to submit to no lectures from Sir Harry Atkinson upon ethical subjects, or upon the rights and duties of a Cabinet Minister. Geo. Fisher. Premier’s Office, Wellington, 3rd July, 1889. Sir, —I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st May, which has remained hitherto unanswered because my time has been fully occupied with preparing for the meeting of Parliament. While admitting the truth of none of the many grave charges and insinuations against myself and others with which your letter abounds, I propose, nevertheless, to deal very summarily with a few of them, which may be taken, both in relevancy and truthfulness, as fairly typical of them all. First, as to what you say about Mr Jackman, Your statement that from the 7th March he was “in daily direct oommunioation with the Premier” and “became almost his confidential adviser ” is simply untrue. Mr Jaokman has given me no advice whatever, and has had no communication with me of any kind in connection with the Junction Brewery (Gilmer’s) cases. Indeed, I have only spoken to him once in my life, and that was in Mr Glasgow's presence, when he appealed against your action in suspending him. I may go further and say that nothing that Mr Jackman has ever .done, said, or written has in any way influenced me or any of your late colleagues in our opinion as to your official gonduct. Secondly, as to your remarks about Mr McCarthy. You speak of him as having been practically installed as Commissioner of Customs in your absence, and as having taken upon fiim the part of official informer to the Government and confidential adviser to myself all through these brewery proseoutiohs, These assertions, which it would he charitable to call reckless, and whioh you make no pretence of supporting by any evidence wnatever, are all untrue. Mr McCarthy, so far as I am aware, never was in the Commissioner’s office, and certainly in no Bense ever had any authority there ; nor did he give any advice or information to me or any other member of the Government with respect to the Junction Brewery cases. What he did was, at a chance meeting on the wharf, to offer to give me infomation for a general character after all the prosecutions should have been disposed with a view to enabling us to ameqd, the Aot and prevent similar frauds the future ; and of this promise I informed, you iu my telegram from Wanganui on the sth March. This yijsys an offer of a strictly honourable and straightforward character, and it expressly excluded the giving of information as tq any of the oases then pending, ojr, indeed, as to

any individual cases at all. Your insinuations as to my friendship with Mr McCarthy are equally baseless. He is not, I hope, my enemy, but a man cannot be called my friend and confidential adviser when I have not spoken to him, I believe, a dozsn times in my life, and certainly not more than two or three times within the last two years. Thirdly, your assertion that I inspired certain articles in the Evening Press aud New Zealand Times is also untrue. I did not write any of the articles referred to ; I did not authorise the writing of them ; I did not, either directly or indirectly, supply either of those papers with the information upon which the articles were based. Fourthly, you assert that your portfolio was offered iu March to Mr J. B. Whyte. This is untrue. MrWhyte has never had such an offer, either directly or indirectly, and no one has ever been authorised to make such an offer.

I now turn to the real matter in dispute—your conduct as Commissioner of Customs with regard to the brewery prosecutions. You continue to Bpeak of them as a “trumpery” matter ; and I must refer you to my letter of the 23rd April for an explanation of how, * ‘ trumpery ” as they perhaps were in themselves, they nevertheless raised an issue of the gravest importance. It is surely childish on your part to insist that a Ministry would not be impeached for the mere “omission on the part of a brewer to enter fifty sacks of malti in his books.” The question at issue between us, as you know very well, is not as to the oonduct of any brewer, but as to the conduct of Mr Fisher at the time when he was a Minister of the Crown. The ques* tion is simply whether, a certain brewer having been guilty of an offence against the law, you did or did not, from improper motives, interfere as Commissioner of Customs with the ordinary course of the law in order to Bcreen the offender from prosecution. I must speak plainly. Your colleagues were and are of opinion that you had been guilty of such an interference, and that they would have been justly stigmatised as dishonourable themselves if they had sanctioned jour conduct or retained you as a colleague. It was for this reason, and this reason only, that you were asked to resign; and I repeat what I said in my letter of the 23rd-April—that, previously to your action in the brewery prosecutions, not one of us had ever thought of your resignation as possible or desirable. Before entering into the details of the Junction Brewery cases, I will briefly dispose of the argument which you base upon the treatment of the Staples brewery for what you call worse offences. Here, for onae, the main facts are not in dispute. We both admit that the irregularities of Staples’ brewery were discovered and disposed of about two months hefore anything was known as to those of Hamilton, Gilmer, cr Edmonds, and, that they were settled by the permanent officers of your department, on their being satisfied that there had been no fraud, without the knowledge of yourself or auy other Minister. Now, we probably both, agree that this was not right; and I, at any rate, showed my opinion about it by giving directions, as soon as the facts came to my knowledge, that such a course must never be allowed again, and that all cases must in future be at once referred to the Commissioner. But what is the argument which you found upon this improper settlement of the Staples brewery case? Simply this : Because, without the knowledge of Ministers, the Government officers of the depart, ment had, believing there was no fraud in Staples’ case, settled it out of Court, that therefore Ministers wore not to prosocute in a case which was brought before them in which fraud was admitted, and which, the Crown Solicitor told you was a bad case, and must be prosecuted. I could, and, if it should appear to b© necessary, I will, follow you through the vast mass of untrue or irrelevant assertions, denials, and insinuations in connection with the brewery prosecutions and other mattera contained in your last letter, and I have a oomplete answer in each case. But this is not now necessary, as you have announced your desire to have a committee of the House, to whom the essential facts will, of course, be stated. Instead, therefore, of doing this now, let me recall your attentions to a bare statement in chronological order of the main facts of the Junction Brewery caaa as admitted by yourself : 1. You admit that during your absence from Wellington it was decided to prosecute Edmonds’, Hamilton’s and the Junction Breweries for frauds under the Beer Duty Act.

2. Yon admit that early in December, on your return from Melbourne, you received at Invercargill a telegram from “ a constituent (whose name you unfortunately do not mention), and that as a result of that telegram you directed Mr McKellar not to proceed with the prosecution of one of the three cases mentioned above—namely, that of the Junction Brewery. S. You admit that shortly afterward you. received a telegram from Mr Hislop upon the subject, urging that proceedings should go on ; that you telegraphed your assent j and that on your return to Wellington you. confirmed it.

4, You admit that on you had an interview with Mr Bell, the Crown Solicitor j that as a result of that interview a letter was written by Mr Bell on the following day, recommending that no Information should be laid against the Junetion Brewery “until after the cases against Hamilton and Edmonds have been disposed of on Friday," iu whioh recommendation you concurred.

(1 may here pause to remind you that, in that interview with Mr Bell, you were Commissioner of Customs aud he was Crown Solicitor?, two public officers consulting as tc* yoi&r official duty. Yet, though charged with having acted at that interview in dereliction of your public duty, and challenged to disclose what then occurred, you not only refuse to do this,, but, while posing as an innooenfc man suffering under a grevioue imputation, you refuse to allow Mr Bell to divulge what then passed, and thus sealed the lips of the oue witness who, on yonr own hypothesis, could establish your innocence.) 5. You admit that by the 23rd February the oases of Edmonds and Hamilton heel

been disposed of ; that the Acting Secretary of Customs at once applied to you for leave to proceed with the prosecution of the Junction Brewery ; and that you replied “ that there was no need for precipitancy in the matter." Here again, on your owu admission, it was you who stopped the prosecution. 6. You admit that you had not removed your interdict against proceedings up to the 4th March, which you now allege you then thought was the last day on which the information could be laid ; that on that day you summoned a meeting of the Cabinet at 2.30 p.m., and tried to induce it to allow you to settle the matter out of Court ; that the Cabinet refused your request, and decided to' prosecute ; and that, when you then sent to inquire whether the information could be laid, you found that it was too late, as the office of the Court was closed. 7. You admit that, though the matter had been on your hands since December, you made no attempt to consult the Premier upon the subject until 7.40 p.m. on the 4th March, i.e., some hours after the time within which the information must be laid had, as you now allege you then thought, expired. 8. You admit that you sent a telegram to the Premier on the 4th March, with the object of inducing him to sanction the settlement of the ease out of Court ; that the Etatement of the facts you relied on was incorrect in an essential particular ; and that you also omitted to mention in that telegram that the Cabinet had that very day refused to allow such a settlement out of Court, and had decided to prosecute. 9. You admit that on the sf;h March the Premier replied to your telegram that the information should be laid that day, but that no information was laid. (I may add here—what is an indisputable fact, though you have not, so far as I know, admitted it—that if the information had been laid that day it would have been in time, and the cases would not have lapsed.) The indictment which I have thus constructed out of your own admissions is one which needs no elaboration to heighten its effect. It proves beyond a possibility of doubt that you have been guilty in your official capacity of a deliberate, persistent, and in part successful attempt to interfere with the ordinary course of the law on behalf of a particular offender, and that you did your utmost to be faithful to the promise which, as you told more than one Minister you had made, that he should be allowed a lenient settlement out of Court on payment of a small sum, instead of being subjected to the *f harassing proceedings of the law." I deeply regret having to write thus of one Once trusted with perfeot confidence, and deemed worthy of it, but your grave disloyalty to your colleagues, to the high trust deposed in you as a Minister of the Crown, and to that unwritten law without which Parliamentary Government would be impossible, has left me no alternative. H. A. Atkinson. Geo. Fisher, Esq., M.ELK., Wellington.