AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT DISCUSSED

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1749, 13 September 1905, Page 16

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT DISCUSSED

ATTITUDE OF THE ACCUSERS. MORE MYSTERY. PARLIAMENTS DECISION. The House of Representatives considered the report of the AuditorGeneral on the voucher inquiry last Thursday, when the Premier moved the following motion: — That the report of the Controller and Auditor-General be adopted; also, 1. Tliat this House is satisfied that the charge against Captain Seddon, of- improperly receiving payment for reorganising defence stores, and against Messrs Collins, Grey and Mcßeth, of giving untrue certificates relating thereto, has been completely refuted and should never have been made. 2. That in the case of Captain Seddon this House regrets that the charge against him should have been reiterated after it had been shown to be unfounded. 3. That it be an instruction to the Supervisor of “ Hansard ” and the Government Printer to insert in the bound copies of l< Hansard” at the end of the speech made by the member for Wellington, Mr F. M. B. Fishei*, in which the charge was first made, and at the end of every debate wherever subsequent reference was made thereto in “ Hansard/’ a copy of the Controller and Au-ditor-General’s report; and that attention be drawn to the said report, and to this resolution, and intimation be given that the said charges have been investigated and refuted.

Mr Seddon said, in regard to the paragraph contained in the first section of the resolution, there would be no difference of opinion amongst members, who would agree that the inquiry was a searching one, and that there was nothing whatever ambiguous in the report. It would b© admitted that the proceedings conducted by the Aud’torGeneral had been carried out calmly and judiciously. He was sorry that Mr Fisher had ungraciously accepted the finding of the Auditor-General and his report. Under all the circumstances, and in the face of the investigation, he should have thought that the finding would have been accepted in the fullest terms. He asked Mr Fisher that day to carry out the pledge he gave to the public if the report went against him. In a letter written to him by Mr Fisher (which he was, unfortunately, debarred from laying on the table) the member for Wellington said he (the Premier) had been placed in an “ unfortunate ” position. It was not he (the Premier) who had heen placed in an unfortunate position, and he asked the hon member whether through his own action he had not placed himself in such a position. H© (Mr Sneddon) throughout these proceedings had had the greatest confidence in his son, who would never have taken a payment for services he had not rendered to the colony, and he had had, therefore, no doubt of the ultimate result of the inquiry. In the meantime,, there had been anxiety and worry, and his mind had been taken from larger questions affecting the welfare of the colony, which had really suffered through the time occupied with this question. The hon member to have made reparation in the first instance, but had he done so? He further regretted that' —owing to the influence of Mr Fisher’s principal witness —when his better nature should have urged him to send an apology and to express regret and make reparation after the voucher had been laid on the table of the House, Mr Fisher had declined to do so. He asked the hon member to say now how his memory had been refreshed so as to induce him to withhold his apology. He (the Premier) laid on the table oi the House a second voucner, No. 17,576, for £74 8 S 3d, dated June 14th.

for Anderson and Co., Ltd., Christchurch, signed by Richard Sneddon, for the supply of .stores to th* Addington workshops. (Sensation.) “ There,” said the Premier, “is th* mystery. There is what stopped him from making the reparation he promised to make to the House and country.’* Where did the postal officials get the number of the voucher from but from the book in the Chief Postmaster’s room at Christchurch? Having made a mistake in respect to June 9th, the date of the first voucher, they said there was a second voucher. The date of the second voucher was June 14th, and it was signed by Richard Sneddon! The hon member had said that if he failed he would go out of public life. He (Mr Seddon) had nothing to say about that. It was a matter entirely for Mr Fisher. He complained again of the manner in which these charges were orrig.nally made, on a Friday night, on Imprest Supply, when there was no opportunity of making inquiry. He thought the House would place on record the motion he had moved, and, at the same time, regret that the secondi charge should have been made. The House would, he thought, agree that the report of the Auditor-General was conclusive. He asked the hon member for Wellington now that, whilst he was doing his duty in respect to the vouchers, he would also do his duty in respect to the charges in connection with the wreath and the Keenan case. Three charges were made altogether, and he acked him that day to clear up the whole thing.

Mr Fisher said he had listened wrtn considerable interest to the Premier’s speech, hut he desired to point out that the Premier had refrained, possibly because the standing-orders did not allow him, from referring to the letter he (Mr Fisher) had sent him two days ago. His object in writing that letter was, not that he had any disbelief in his own case, but because he wished to remove the matter entirely from a personal atmosphere. It was believed by some people that this w r as entirely a personal matter against, the Premier. That he denied. He still had unbounded confidence in the witnesses on his side, and the people of New Zealand would, not be satisfied until they had a public inquiry, where the press was admitted, and where they couid subject the evidence given on both sides to cross-examination. “I have no fear; he cannot break down my evidence, but I can smash his into nine-pms.” The four postal officials asked to be allowed to go before a Judge of the Supreme Court, and they would suffer the most extreme penalty if they could not prove their case. The Premier was trying to tie down the period of the vouchers to the month of June, thus taking advantage of the general circumstances, but there were many Sneddon vouchers that came to light. The Sneddon vouchers, however, were white, and the Seddon voucher was blue. These men swore that they handled this voucher, signed “R. J. S. Seddon.” They could not he mistaken. If such a document existed, where did it go to? And if there was no record' of it, why was it not recorded? It could not be believed that these men were suffering from a delusion. They handled a blue voucher for a charge against the Defenoe Department, the other voucher was against Working Railways, and anyone who went into the matter would find it absolutely impossible to conclude that these men were making a mistake in regard to the two vouchers. It was mysterious and puzzling. Why did Captain Seddon Sign his Treasury vouchers “R. J. Seddon” and his other vouchers “R. J. S. Seddon” ? It was the duty of the Government to find out what the document was these men handled, and above all things, who signed it “R. J. S. Seddon.” Whereas he was quite prepared to accept the decision of the Auditor-Gen-eral, on the other hand, he hoped the Premier would be prepared to accept the judgment of any other tribunal that might be set up. The Premier had invited these men out into the open, and when they came out, he wanted to shoot them down, without giving them a chanoe to defend themselves.

Mr McNab said he agreed with Mr Fisher in expressing the hope that the matter would be decided without party feeling, but he had to remind the hon. member that a great deal of the hostility which Mr Fisher thought existed against him in connection with this matter was largely the result'’of his own imagination.' He made bold to say that the treatment the House had given the hon. member had been on the whole, and without exception, very fair and honourable treatment, because members realised that it was the youngest member of the House who was making these charges. Many of those closely connected with him in his political views had expressed their opinion to him (Mr McNab) that a great deal of the difficulty had been brought, on himself, and the party with whom he was associated, by his hastiness in bringing forward this charge, when perhaps a few years’ political experience would have resulted in no such charge being made at all. In his (Mr McNab’s) opinion the judgment of the Auditor-General met every requirement. Its effectiveness was a complete answer

to tlie charge that had been made. He moved to add to the Premier’s motion : That this House also desires to place ■upon record an expression of its pleasure at the receipt of the report of. the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and congratulates the Right Hon the Premier as Minister for Defence that the charge made by the hon member for the City of Wellington (Mr F. M. B. Fisher) has been proved to be unfounded in substance and in fact, and that it has been established that no payment of the nature alleged was ever made. That the House also recognises with extreme gratification that the certificates given by the Secretary to the Treasury, the Assistant-Secretary to the Treasury, and the Under-Secretary of Defence relating to the alleged wrongful payment to Captain Seddon nave been proved to be absolutely correct, and the House desires to congratulate the officers named, and also Captain Seddon, of the Defence Department, upon having successfully vindicated their reputation as officials, and also the reputation of their respective departments from the attack maae upon them by the honourable member for the City of Wellington (Mr F. M. B. Fisher). That Mr Speaker be requested to forward a copy of the resolution and a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor-Gene-ral's report to the gentlemen against whom the charges were made. Mi* Lawry seconded the amendment. Mr Taylor said it was obvious that the action taken by rthe member for Mataura was to prevent members from being forced to express a vote, ay or no, in favour of a public inquiry being granted to these postal officials in Christchurch, as indicated by him in the motion of which he had given notice, viz.: That, in view of the failure of the private inquiry held by the Auditor-General under the restricted order of reference designed by the Premier to discover the voucher which Messrs Lareombe West, Willis, and Lnndon four experienced and reputable Civil servants in the Christchurch Post Office swear they handled, examined, and discussed, this House is of opinion that the present unsatisfactory position of the question in dispute should be met by the immediate appointment of a public inquiry, - with full power to investigate, to call for evidence upon oath, to order the production of persons and papers, and to permit the parties concerned or counsel representing them to appear. Mr McNab: No, that is not so.

The Speaker explained that Mr Taylor could move his amendment after Mr McNab’s amendment had been disposed of.

Mr Taylor proceeded to analyse the evidence. He pointed out that the witness Willis had asked for access to certain Treasury records and was denied, and that the area of his search had thereby been restricted. He declared now deliberately, knowing the responsibility resting upon him as representative of the city of Christchurch, that he had it, on what he considered most excellent authority, that one of the officials in the public service in Wellington during the past week had declared that, despite the Auditor-General's report. a record of the existence of such a voucher was in the office a few weeks ago, and must have been destroyed by some method since the member for Wellington had mentioned this matter. (“Oh’s.”) There was the challenge, and the four postal officials, as his constituents, declared that was their belief. Nothing but a public inquiry could ascertain ■whether this was true or not.

Sir Joseph Ward explained at length the system of entering vouchers in vogue in the Treasury, which, he said, showed that the record of any voucher could not be destroyed, even if there werejhpeople who told the hon member for Christchurch that such a voucher had existed. Mr Fisher, in his letter to the Premier, “freely and frankly” accepted the Auditor-General’s report so far as any payment to Captain Seddon was concerned. And yet he now asked for a public inquiry, and told the House that the Premier could not break down his evidence. He was convicted out of his own mouth. The theory of the existence of blue and white vouchers was absolutely thin. The hon members who were suggesting the disappearance of this voucher were relying upon the memory of officials who had disclosed information which in any case they were bound by obligation to keep secret. Mr Taylor: Not at all. Sir Joseph Ward asked if public officers had a right to go and give information outside and to hon members, or if a Government official could go to his wife and disclose public information ? Was that not breaking his obligation? The hon member asked the House to accept the statement that these men must be right, because they said they saw a voucher of which there was no record at all, which could not have vanished, and of which a record mustbe made. The hon member asked the House to believe that, these high Treasury officials had perjured themselves in order to clear the PfSTSiier and his son, and that they were afraid to bring in a report adverse to the Minister in charge. But he desired to point out that the record-book in Christchurch was quite independent of the recordbooks in the Audit Department, and if this transaction had taken place in Christchurch, there would have bqen a record of it. No man could suggest there was any collusion between those who kept the record here and those in (Christchurch. The man who had misled Mr Fisher in the first instance must have informed him about the wreath.

It was the same authority, and the hon member could not deny it, and that officer was also mistaken in regard to the wreath. Mr Wilford thought Mr Taylor had imputed unworthy motives to the hon member for Mataura, whose record in the House was sufficient to speak for itself. The clear-cut issue was, did Captain Seddon receive a sum of money for reorganising defence stores or not? What men could give further evidence than those who had been already called ? There was no possible reason for another inquiry unless it was proved that the Auditor-General was not an impartial man, and was not fit to hold the inquiry. Mr Fowlds said he .was perfectly satisfied with the investigation made by the Auditor-General. The inquiry was conclusive that no such payment was made, and lie saw no benefit to be derived by submitting the matter to any further tribunal. Mr Moss said he would vote against the amendment moved by Mr McNab because there was a mystei*y about the voucher. One could hardly think that the Christchurch officials had made a mistake, and no one would insinuate that they had been inspired to make the charge. The tribunal had not been a satisfactory one to the public. Mr Laurenson said he believed no such payment had been made to Captain Seddon- as had been charged against him. The weight of evidence was practically overwhelming, and every man who read it, and weighed it, must agree that the Auditor-General had come to the only possible conclusion. He (Mr Laurenson) suggested that the Premier, having got the verdict, and having conclusively proved that there was no such payment, could well afford to be generous. That being so, lie would like to see the Premier strike out of his motion that portion which said “ that this charge should never have been made.” He thought the member for Wellington, as anyone would see after reading the evidence, was justified in making the charge. The Premier could strike out the words suggested without any loss of dignity on the part of the Government or of the Prime Minister himself. Mr Hogg argued that when the first denial had been made he felt that it was unnecessary to hold an inquiry. The most intelligent people were liable to be deceived. Shakespeare made Macbeth speak of c ' that phantom dagger.” Transposing Shakespeare’s words somewhat, lie might well ask, “ Is this a voucher that I see before me?” etc. (Laughter.) He supported the Premier’s motion, believing it was time the curtain was rung down on the tragedy of the missing voucher. Mr Major said the whole of the evidence for the prosecution had been based upon the hallucinations of the four Christchurch officers. Those officers had everything to gain by sticking to their charge. They were sticking out to save their skins and the skins of those who Rad taken an active part in the accusations. W 7 hat was the use of asking for an inquiry by the Supreme Court if there was no new evidence to-, support the charge ? If there was fresh evidence, why not speak up on the floor of the House? Mr Fisher, speaking to the amendment, said no member of Parliament could have disregarded the sworn information of these men of the Christchurch Post Office, and no member of the House could convince him that these four men were suffering from an hallucination. An endeavour had been made by means of these resolutions before the House to place upon his shoulders a charge lie had never uttered, and he defied any member of the House to find a record of it in or out of “Hansard,” and that was the paragraph stating “ that the charge of giving untrue certificates had been completely refuted, and ought never to have been made.” v There had never been any charge made by Him against Messrs Heywood, Collins, and Grey. Mr Seddon pointed out that the Treasury officers, in their evidence, had stated that after an examination of the records and books, there was no trace of any such payment as had been alleged. The member for Wellington distinctly oast a reflection upon these offiers, and then he stood up in his place in the House and said he had made no such reflection. He had cast a reflecttion that had never been cast upon high public officers in the history of this colony. The whole cause of this debate was because certain officers felt so deeply pained that their honour and integrity had been assailed that they came to their masters —the Parliament —to set up an inquiry, and they had the result of that inquiry that night. And yet the hon member said he had the fullest confidence in his informants, and that the resolutions were wrong, when the whole basis of the structure was the allegations of the hon member. On the one hand the hon member told the country he deeply regretted, and that there was no reflection upon Captain Seddon, whom he exonerated, and with the next breath Mr Fisher put on record in “Hansard” the affidavits of the Christchurch officials, no doubt with the object of poisoning the public mind—affidavits which were faulty and defective. Was the hon member’s action just? No. it was entirely unfair and un-British. Either he should have adhered to the charges and stood b.v the men who made

them, or he should have withdrawn and given that reparation to him (the Premier), the House, and country which he had promised. Every voucher Captain Seddon had received had been investigated by the Auditor-General, so that there was no reason to think there had been a payment for something else. If the member for Wellington had stood up on the floor of the House and made nothing more than the frank admission of regret he had made in his letter to him, he would have done credit to himself and to the people he represented, but the speech lie had just delivered made him feel tha£ he would only go as far as he was forced by circumstances, and then he still wanted to put on record that which would be against himself (the Premier), and one to whom he had done grievous injury. In regard to the position of these men the hon member was trying to save, and in trying to save them to justify the course he had taken, under the Civil Service Act the men had a right to demand an inquiry, and that inquiry must he made under the regulations. No Government could stop an inquiry under the regulations. The men had their remedy, for the regulations provided for a board being set up by Order-in-Councii: It could be public or private, as the Governor-in-Coun-cil decided, and yet the House had been petitioned as though the men had been deprived of their rights. The Government did not deny the men their just rights, but what it did say was that it was time there was an end to this wretched business. (Applause.) Mr Duthie accepted the finding of the Auditor-General without reservation. His report showed that there was no trace in the books to substantiate the charge. It gave him great pleasure to say so, because one did not like to see a young man have such a charge against him without having full acqyittal. At the same time, he considered that the Treasury officers had no right to petition the House. It was a most irregular proceeding. Although he thought that those laying the charge Ixad fallen into an error, he believed the Premier should not have stood in the way of the most open inquiry. Mr R. McKenzie referred to Mr Fisher’s challenge to the House to prove that he had ever made a charge against officers of the Treasury as cool audacity. The officers in their petition mentioned the charge. The prime mover in the whole trouble had been Mr Taylor. Rising to a point of order, Mr Taylor denied that he was the originator of the charges. Mi* McKenzie maintained that the whole thing had been manufactured to introduce a new political party to the colony. The party had been born, and was now practically dead. It had been known as the “Young Liberal party,” or the. “Young Libel party." He referred to it also as the “Skull and Crossbones Political party.” The Speaker: I am of opinion that reference to the birth of a new party has nothing to do with the question before the House. Mr Major: It is its funeral, not its birth. Mr McKenzie: Of course, if you rule against me, sir, I won’t refer t-o it. This voucher has been hawked all ever the colony, and produced on public platforms, and the new party will be politically dead as soon as this agitation dies. Let them all go over to the Australian colonies, and they will find the same yell of indignation from one end to the other. Mr Massey said, so far as the inquiry was concerned, the Auditor-General was a capable and fearless man. He fully accepted his decision. He thought, however, the Premier had made a mistake in opposing the amendment which was moved a few weeks ago by the member for Wairarapa, providing for a more open order of reference. The so-called amendment of the member for Mataura implied that there was first of all a doubt as to whether the Premier would be able to prove that these statements were unfounded in fact. .He did not think it should be necessary to congratulate anyone holding the high position of the Premier of this colony upon his honestv, nor to congratulate officers of the department upon their truthfulness, any lpore than it should be necessary to congratulate the Speaker upon giving an impartial decision. The Premier would be consulting liis own dignity if he asked the member for Mataura to withdraw his amendment. There was still a mystery which should be inquired into. These men said fhey had seen and handled a voucher providing for a certain payment to Captain Seddon. He did not know what they had seen, but he did not think it could be suggested that the men had conspired in making the statements they had put forward. An inquiry, open and exhaustive, and one that would satisfy the public,’ was demanded. The House and country were thoroughly tired of this question, which had entirely overshadowed the business of the House to the detriment of legitimate questions, and he hoped, after that night, they would hear very little more of the voucher business. (Hear, hear.) Mr E. M. Smith asked if Messrs Taylor and Fisher had not promised to find employment for the Christchurch officers if they got “bumped out” of the service ? He was told that the member for Wel-

lington was going to take one of them into partnership with. him. (I r.ighter.) The hon gentleman could laugh, but he would be surprised if he (Mr Smith) told him he had proof of what The said. It showed the whole thing to be a conspiracy. (Laughter.) They could laugh, but the young Liberal party would laugh on the other side of. its mouth after the election. Mr Taylor might have been a useful member of the House, a useful member of society, if he had stuck to proper politics, to housing the workers, toMr Taylor: To bar iron. Mr Smith: Well, X T ve seen many samples of pig-iron, but—(the remainder of the sentenoe was lost in uproarious laughter). The new Liberals had been shown in their nakedness. Mr Baume showed that Mr Massey had in 1898 voted in favour o: the insertion of an inset to “Hansard” —calling attention to a Select Committee’s report refuting charges made by Mr George Hutchison against Mr Seddon (the “Bun Tuck” charges). Mr Massey now said that nothing but the speeches of members should be inserted in “Hansard.” The Premier and his son had been placed at the 'bar of public opinion on a charge of theft, and heaven help them if they were left to the tender mercies of the leader of the Opposition. Reviewing the evidence of the Christchurch officials, he pointed out several discrepancies. Mr Massey explained that in 1898 he had to choose between two evils—the mutilation of a part of “Hansard” or the insertion of a small inset at the end of Mr Hutchison’s speech. Mr Hawkins considered that Mr Fisher made a fatal mistake in not rising in his place and making a frank and generous apology to the Premier and Captain Seddon when the Sneddon voucher was discovered. Mr Tanner thought the only logical conclusion to be arrived at was that the voucher seen by the Christchurch officials was a hoax. Mr Ell said the men in Christchurch, had entirely made a mistake, and committed a great blunder. He regretted, the method in which the charge had been brought before the House. He hoped, however, that something would be done to make the further search asked for. He also regretted that the apology of Mr Fisher was not more definite and frank. Mr Lewis, whilst voting for the Premier’s motion and Mr McNab’s amendment, thought the amendment was toe fulsome and unnecessary. He did not x’ecognise the claim of the Christchurch. Post Office officials for further inquiry, seeing that they had failed to make good their case. They were now asked to set up an inquiry to find out who Had hoaxed these men, but they had shown themselves to Have no further claim to the consideration of the House. Mr Lawry agreed that the time Had arrived when finality should be reached on this question, but were they reaching finality? It must not be forgotten that the member for Christchurch had presented a petition to the House from the four Christchurch officials concerned. This had been, referred to the M to Z Committee, and when the report of that committee was brought down, they would have the whole matter reopened. Mr Berber said there was one question which had not been dealt with, and that was the Premier’s positive statement that no such payment had been made. The Premier accepted the full responsibility of that statement, which lie would not have made had there been such a payment. Mr Herries said he would have been glad to have voted for the Premier’s motion, and for the congratulations offered to him, but for the proposal contained in the motion to interfere with “ Hansard/’ The amendment of Mr MoNab was nut for tlie purpose of stifling debate on the Premier’s motion —they could see that from the hurry in which the member for Mataura got up. It was a “ put up job ” from tho beginning, and they knew who was behind it, Mr Seddon: It was not. Mr Herries replied that he was bound to accept the Premier’s statement, but he had no right to adopt these tactics on this occasion. He would walk out of the lobby, and not vote on the question. Mr MoNab’s amendment was agreed to by 47 votes to 14. The following voted against- the amendment —Messrs Taylor, Fisher, Bedford, Tanner, Hawkins, Duthie, Buchanan, Harding, Massey, Herdman, James Allen, Rhodes, Mander, and Moss. On the motion that the Premier’s motion be agreed to, Mr Bedford moved the amendment of which Mr Taylor had given notice, asking that a public inquiry be granted. Mr Seddon asked whether this amendment was in order. He maintained that it was not relevant to the motion, which dealt with past actions and the substance of a report. The Speaker ruled that the amendment as pertinent to the whole question. Mr »Y. Fraser, as a member of the M to Z Committee, to whom had been referred the petition of the four Christ-

church officials, considered that memibers of that committee would have to leave the Chamber before a division was taken on this amendment; otherwise members would-go to that committee with their minds prejudiced. The Speaker ruled that members of the committee were perfectly free to speak, and vote on, the amendment. Mr Bedford then, moved Mr Taylor’s amendment, with the omission of the words'(after, the words “under the restricted order of reference”) “designed by the Premier,” as they did not desire to have the personal reflection. The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder, Mr Taylor and Mr Fisher having: already spoken. Subsequently Mr Mander rose to second the amendment, but the Speaker ruled that he was too late, as the Hon ■Mr, Hall-Jones had- already moved the previous; question (the close of .the debate). This-was carried: on the voices. The:- Premier’s motion, as amended, was put shortly before 2 a.m., and carried by 47 votes to: 5. The following voted, against itMessrs Fisher, Taylor, Laurensbn, Moss, Bedford.. MR FISOBBER’S “APOLOGY.” Mr Fisher has- done tardily, grudgingly; and- incompletely; what h© ought to have done: promptly an< l unreservedly, so soon as he found he was unable to substantiates the very serious charges which he brought against the Premier and. his- son. . . . .Mr Fisher himself recognised the gravity of the charge when he made it.. Speaking, in the House on? August - 2nd, he said : —“lf it is. found- that. I am in the wrong, X dot everything in my power to make reparation.” Addressing a public meeting at Dunedin two days later, he expressed a hope that the matter would. • ha referred to a Parliamentary Committee,, and', that the committee should be- askecTto* say whether he should send in his resignation or not. Be added:*— “X say. to- the public of New Zealand that if the Parliamentary Committee reports against me, then in. goes my resignation, and X* pass . out of public liffii” The question'was referred to the Auditor-General instead of a committee, without: any opposition from Mi: Fisher, and the Auditor-General. lias- reported: against, him. But. there is no sign of Mr Fisher’s resignations—-Christ-church '(Press.”

W© could, wish, that the letter which Mr Fisher has addressed to the Premier, and which we must-, we suppose, style an apology, had been couched in more frank and", generous terms. The young member for Wellington is rather fond; of pluming himself upon his “sporting instincts,” but he is strangely lacking in those finer qualities which the British public associate with a. real sportsman. He seems quite incapable of'rising to the greatness which enables a man with good grace to acknowledge himself, .in; the wrong; His letter to Mr ‘Seddon is rather an excuse than an apology. It is .-scarcely a retraction. (Portions of letter quoted.) This is a good deal like knocking a man down, with your bicycle on the footpath and then expressing, regret that he was not walking in the middle of the road.— “Lyttelton Times.”

The manner and matter of Mr Fisher’s “apology” to the Premier and Captain Seddon in the affair of the alleged improper payment to the latter of a certain sum of money leave a great deal to be desired. Mr Fisher’s definitely made charges have proved to be a soap bubble, which soared aloft for. a very little time in somewhat dazzling fashion, and then incontinently burst, leaving a little frothy splotch on the floor of the House—and nothing more. There has been no voucher and no payment. There was then nothing left to Mr Fisher; one would think, hut to offer a manly expression of regret, honourable to the offender, and acceptable to the injured parties. As we read the so-called “apology,” we do not see any such expression. . . . Mr Fisher expresses no regret for his mistakes, or for anything in fact that he has done, hut he very kindly expresses his deep and sincere regret at the “unfortunate position in which the Premier and his son have been placed.” He might use precisely the same terms if: the Premier and his son had been found guilty of murder, and were under sentence to be hanged. No doubt Mr Fisher, and Mr Taylor, who probably helped to draft the “apology,” consider this very smart. Among straightforward _ men it will fee considered only contemptible Mr Fisher’s advent into Parliament has cost the country a pretty penny in delay of public business, printing, and time of State officials, outside the attack upon the Premier. His compensating value as a representative of Wellington city has yet to- he seen;—“Vairarapa Observer.”

DUNEDIN. 'September 6. Tie Vf Star ,J says: Tardily, and in halting, inadequate fashion, Mr Fisher has tendered to the Premier and. - Captain Seddon the apology which ought to have been forthcoming after, the exposure of the "Sneddon blunder, more ..thjaai.-a month ago. It is a pity that Mr Fisher did not stop at the opening paragraph, which is frank and satisfactory, as he shows to much less

advantage in some of the subsequent paragraphs. In proceeding to ask for a further inquiry, after "freely and frankly" accepting the decision of the AuditorGeneral, Mr Fisher goes far towards destroying whatever grace and worth his belated apology might possess. Messrs Fisher and Taylor are making a mistake if they imagine that pnblio sentiment is anxiously concerning itself with the true inwardness of the convictions of the four misguided Christchurch officials. It holds that for divulging the business of the Postal Department they must pay the penalty of their misconduct, irrespective of the issue whether their disclosures are true or false. The apology falls far short of what British fairness and good: feeling (Mr Fisher’s favourite qualities) might have dictated. It remains to be seen whether the discounted offenders against political seemliness will show due respect for public opinion by adopting an attitude of reticence and humility during the remainder of the session. Five weeks ago in their hour of blatant confidence they talked of retiring into private life if their charges should be disproved. This was the mere ad captandam chatter of flushed self-as-sertiveness, and there will be no resignations. The chance of the electors will not come till the end of November.