THE FISHER CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 906, 12 July 1889, Page 22

THE FISHER CASE.

Before dismissing—we hope finally—tlhe extraordinary correspond-

ence which occupied so much space in our last and this issue, it may be well to indicate briefly the practical outcome of this epistolary battle. In the first place, the field may be cleared of a good deal of extraneous and irrelevant matter. It is needless even to touch upon the Education Bill incident, or upon the Jackman episode. Both are quite outside of the main question, which is—What was the true cause of Mr Eisher’s enforced retirement from the Ministry 1 Mr Fisher asserts the true cause to have been the irreconcilable differences of opinion which existed between himself and his colleagues on vital questions of policy or administration. The Premier replies that no such irreconcilable differences existed;

that there ha l been nothing more than the customary minor varieties of opinion which arO L to be found in every Cabinet, and that Mr Fisher had always acquiesced in the view of the majority, v<’hile in regard to several of the points mentioned the Premier was not previously aware that even a slight difference of opinion existed. It will be noticed that Mr Fisher in his rejoinder wholly fails to combat the very clear statement of the Premier on this head. A perusal of Mr Fisher’s explanation is sufficient to prove the Premier’s case, even were there the slightest reason to doubt the accuracy of the very plain statement which Sir Harry Atkinson offers in opposition to Mr Fisher’s vague and indefinite assertions. But it is unnecessary to go into this, because there is one absolutely fatal flaw in Mr Fisher’s case which settles the whole matter. Had Mr Fisher’s alleged differences from his colleagues been of such a nature as to prevent his being any longer able to work with them, what would have happened? Would he have acquiesced in everything and agreed to theadoption ofall sortsofcourses which he so strenuously disapproved ? No; he would have resigned. He did not take that step, and' it logically follows, therefore, that his differences were not insuperable. And so long as ho conceded his own views in deference to his colleagues, even while he might retain his personally dissentient opinions, why should the Premier desire to get rid of him ? The idea is a manifest absurdity. Nothing can be plainer than that it would be better to retain in the Government so pliant and acquiescent a colleague, thus committing bim to the support—-by his vote at any rate —of measures adopted by the Ministry on a whole, than to turn him out and so leave him free to vote against them in detail- Obviously, if Mr Fisher had really entertained those deep sentiments of hostility to the measures which he now condemns (after the event), it is he who would necessarily have been the one to initiate the severance of his connection with the Ministry. Had his objection to his colleagues’ measures been in reality so strong as to compel his retirement, he would have resigned voluntarily. Not having so resigned he puts himself “ out of court.” By not so resigning he deliberately acquiesced in all that the Government did up to the time that the Premier called on him to resign on account of his conduct in a particular matter of departmental administration. Thus, not having voluntarily resigned on the ground of these alleged serious differences of opinion, he clearly cannot relevantly plead these as the cause of an enforced resignation explicitly based on his conduct in a certain specific matter. On the showing therefore of his own words and actions, all the talk about differences of opinion on questions of policy is wholly beside the question, and the sole ground of his retirement remains, as stated by the Premier, the proceedings in regard to the Wellington brewery prosecutions. Here again we find some irrelevant matter to discard. It matters little what was the nature of Mr Fisher’s “ friendship ” for the defendant in the particular case over which the trouble arose. If it consisted, as Mr Fisher says, in their mutual association in acts of charity and benevolence, so much the more honour to both of them. But this does not in the slightest degree touch the question at issue. If that particular defendant were the most benevolent and charitable being under the sun, that was no reason why he should be allowed to defraud the revenue, or why the Commissioner of Customs should prevent his being prosecuted for doing so. The sole point at issue j a . —Did or did not Mr Fisher neglect to prosecute this particular individual, although bound by his duty as a Minister to do so, and expressly warned by all the authorities that such was his duty ? Mr Fisher’s own letters show clearly that he did. His own admissions-distinctly support the Premier’s position on this score. We have not the slightest desire to make any harsh comments upon his conduct in the affair. We have published fully the facts as stated on both sides, and the public can judge the case for themselves. It ia not at all necessary for: the purpose of the argument to prove I or assert that Mr Fisher acted corruptly. We are quite willing to { assume that he acted under a misconj ception of his duties and responsiI bilities as a Minister. Bub it seems

to ub tbat the bare fact that a Minister virtually interfered—by act either of omießion or of commission—with the due course of the law in regard to the prosecution ol an bffender in whom he felt a personal interest is in itself fatal to his case. (That he did so his own admissions abundantly prove. Having done so, no matter how innocent or even laudable his motives may have been, he could not with propriety be permitted to remain a Minister. It is by their overt actions and not by their covert motives that . .public men must be judged. Mr Fisher’s motives may have been right, but his actions were clearly wrong, and so he was very properly called on to resign under penalty of dismissal.