MR G. HUTCHISON'S ALLEGATIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 3581, 5 November 1898, Page 3

MR G. HUTCHISON'S ALLEGATIONS

BE POET OF THE COMMITTEE. HOW A CHINESE DOdUMENT WAS PREPARED. interesting details. The dommUtoo appointed I s inquire into and report upon **lo allegations made during the financial debate against tiio Premier and the late Mr Nathan Seddjn presented its joport to the House yesterday afternoon. The committee states that Mr Hutohkon was requested to attend to . oridqot the cr-e and to give evidence, which he declined to do, tpr reasons stated in his letter. The comjpiittoo. aummqnod Mr Hutchison to attend and give evidence. Ho at ended, and made the following .statements,: —“ I attend the committee, beoahso it might, apppar d : - Courteous not to respond to the request addressed to ms by the chairman ; bnt I d > hot attend tp give evidence or take ony pp ■•t in the proceedings of t this. oommi'toe. I claim that 1 am not answerable to any Con. j bt any committee for what I have said in my place in Parliament. The committee is already aware that I have stated I won’d appear before any fait tribunal to inves ■ gate the allegations now before tho committee; or, if Mr Soddon will forego hia a - vantage on this committee, I will repeat on! side the privilege of Parliament the matori allegations 1 made in the coarse of the line biul debate. More than that X will not (’< . The committee must therefore excuse n.- r further attendance now, oratany future time." Tho committee considered tho refusal a d determined by a majority that it would no report this to tho House until after allovdenco had been taken. It now drew the attention of tho House to the refusal. Tno allegations, says tho report; may be divided into.two subjects, one, the alleged payments to Mr Nathan Soddon and Mr R J. Seddon, and the other, Mr R, J. Seddou’s connection with the Chinese. Amongst tho papers produced was tho special auditors’ (Messrs Spence end Palliaer’s) report, dated Octobe 13th, 1881, of their investigations, and ths Charges against Mr Seddon must necessarily bo largely breed thereon. In reference t> Mr Nathan Seddon, it is stated: —“ Nathaniel Soddon, day labourer. Wo find on mo=, oarefnl examination that tais man was paid in full up to the 25th December, 1879, .after which date confusion begins. This man received wages at the rate of .£3 per week np to tho sth November, 1831, when hia weekly engagement terminated by order of the Cooncil .—From 25th December, 1879, to sth November, 1881, 97 weeks at £3 per week, .£291 j amount actually paid, vide schedule C attached, £5lO ; excess paid, according to cash be jk and lodger, £219 10s;” and by sohodnle C attached to the report the various alleged payments, amounting to £5lO 10s. aro set forth. Tho auditors further say, “ All the hack documents and vouchers were in a very mixed and disordered state, but we com manned our operations by chocking all payments from tho cash book with the corresponding vouchors, and, after considerable trouble, succeeded in obtaining vouchers for nearly all tho entries in the cash book, except those enumerated in Hat 11 A,” so that it may fairly bo oonelnded that vouchers for these various payments wore produced to these auditors on their audit, and' that they found such vouchors to correspond with payments as per cash-book and ledger. The custody of these documents after the audit made early in October until his resignation on November 6th was left with Mr Wyldo, and soon after it was found that a number of vouchors were missing, and for tho payments of 1880 to Mr Nathan Seddon only four can now be produced. An examination of these shows that the dates quoted by ths auditors are the dates of the vouchers, and that in all cases payment as per receipt on bottom of vouchors was only made mouths afterwards. The committee submitted tha question of these payments to Messrs Komber and Scott, two certificated accountants, whoso report on this point is as follows : “Forthe information of tho eommiHco, wo furnish a statement of what wo consider the amount of wages payable to N. Seddon from the 7th ipril, 1830, the time o£ hia settlement J?y bill np to 27th October, 1881, about tho

time of hia leaving tho pdimandnt employ of . tbo Council—7th April, 1880, to 27th October, 1881, eighty-two weeks at JB3, X24C ; vouchors produced to us, as marked on schedule C. enclosed, .£lO3 ; amount of difference not supported by vouchor, .£l3. So far tbo papers woold po to show tbo Council still indebted to N. Soddon for this amount, but you will find ; in the } 15th May, £2l, and Bth July, £2i. Wo find ( in cash and bank-book paid out IGth July, wagci,-£2l; 2Dth July, wages, .£3O. lu all i probability N. Seddon wrs paid tho £") out ’ of these sitmi. Wo therefore conclude that N. Seddon only received from the Council 5 the amount of cash ho was entitled to, and , then only, as tho vouchers show, in most cases , at long intervals after the, duo date.” Their examination on fho position will bo found in tho evidence, These, gentlemen are of opir ; on that schedule “C” lo.the report of the special auditors is valueless, riitcc they hold that tho vouchers must have been duplicates. Various payments being shown of approximately equal - amounts at later dates both by bank pass-book, caih-book and ledgo a difference of opinion arose as to their identity with those under the schedule. Tbo committee, therefore, caused 10 cheques for corresponding amounts to be obtained from tho bank; of these only five bear tho of Nathan Seddon, while tho others appear to bo paid to Mr Wylde either by cish or through his private account. At this interval it seems to be impossible, in the absence of reliable evidence, to arrive at any cdrlainty,: biit yotlr cam* nrttoe is agreed th-vt there is no evidence of over-payment to Mr Nathan Seddon. CHARGES AGAINST MR It J. SEDDON. Of tho passages complained of in reference te Mr‘R. J. fc’oddon, tho principal* statement by Mr Hutchison is on page C 3 of “ Hansard,” whore referring to Mr Seddon’s examination in Court aa a witness for Mr Wylde, ho exys‘‘-In tto course of bis examination, however, a document was put into his hands • it was an authority in hia own favour from his uncle, Nathan Seddon, under which the right hon gentleman had to admit that ho, birnsolf, had boon tbo person who had drawn the moneys so paid and overpaid.” Tho committee is, of course, ignorant as to tho evidence by which Mr Hutchison would seek to establish this, but the authority referred to, bearing date the fbh of March; 1878, has been produced. Mr Barnett, in his evidence, stated that ho thought two paj monts were made under it when Mr B. J. Seddon was Mayor of Kumara. If such payments wore made, they were quite in order. There is no evidence that any payment was made nndor it in tho years under review, namely, 1880-1881. Tho special auditors make no allusion to Mr R. J Soddon in this oouneotion. and tho committee ia of opinion that on the evidence before them Mr Hutchison is in error on this point. The part taken by Mr R. J. Seddon in opposing a special audit at tho prolonged meetings of the Council vrhen deciding as to a course of action, and generally in championing Mr Wylde, Iwd him open to adverse criticism, but after a very full investigation, tho committee is of opinion that this is explainable by party zeal, MR SEDDON’S REPUTATION. That the allegations that Mr R. J. Soddon was held in indifferent repute on tbo West Coast is disproved. MR R. J. SEDDON’S ASSOCIATION WITH CHINESE. In reference to tho farther charge of Mr Scddon’s connection with tho Chinese the report states {—Briefly, Mr HUfcobieon’s charges wore that Mr Seddon was once connected with them in business on tho Wont Coast, rtnd that he was there a partner with certain Chinamen, and known arnongat thorn as Bun Tuck. It was elicited tint Mr Seddon practised for years as a min'ng advocate, and was in that capacity employed by tho Chinese. ’ Tho committee finds that at one tilno Mr R. J. Seddon was the registered owner of a Share in a mining claim along with a party of Chinamen | but the explanation of Mr Seddon, in his sworn statement, is that he took a tfansfor of this shard in trust from a Chinaman who was going homo on a visit, and that bo hold it only on this client’s account. This ia corroborated. t by. witnesses, Evidence was given that tire Chjnaman-' (Turn Shum) loft a man to work his share, and that tho proceeds wore not paid to Mr JJ. J. Sjddon. In regard to Mr Hutchison’s charge ' that Mr Soddon was known - Tuci) t!la committee has had no evidence placed before it in support of it There ia evidence of the existence of a Chinaman of the name of Bung Tuok) who was one of the shareholders in the Milling clairii rSfetred to; whiqti mining party wan Variously known rta the Tiim Shdm and Bupg Tuck party, arid the coihmitteo lias. little ..d9nbt, that. Mr Hutchison in his statement otmeorriing this •!#.= In. ..orroy, In reference i-j a doonmeiit read '; to the House by tho member for Pacea, the'evidenoe leads to the conclusion that the original was written in English, and that tbo member for Patoa proecroi the translation of the document into Chinese, a olerk having taken the original in English to a Chinese place of business in Welling toil, and had it translated into Chinese there. The names ih the document are not—uo far as dotild be ascertained—the names cf individuals obn-’ seated with the party of, Chinese alluded to, with this exception, thij.toua, of the Chinese was napio.l thing (not Bun). Tuok. ~ Itis right to statu that Mr Sodden admits that the fact of his. name appearing as, it .tides in, the transfer was not unlikely to lead to a misapprehension. In conclusion the report says -: Qt course, in an investigation Avhoro tllere is nb prosebutor, dud the defendant has flyat td( state the case against himself, and thdn tb disprove it, the result must always bo inconclusive and unsatisfactory, but in the present case, since the questions raided are iu thd main so dependent upon d icumontary evidence, your committee advances tho opinions | expressed in this report with a good deal of j confidence that the.oasa is fairly put before the House.

The Minister of LakDs moved that after hearing the report the references mads by Mr Q. Hutchison to charges against the Premier bo eipvtu"ad from the bodnd volumes df “ Hansard; ’ , Captain Rtrsssin expressed his pleasure at d report aq satisfactory to the Premier having been accepted, but quoffibsed the possibility of carrying tl(a motion into effeot, nor did. he see how it would benefit the Premier,.seding that the report would appear in the Journals of the House.; No doubt the allegations had been made injudiciously, and ho thought, Mr Hutchison would be sorry he had made them.

r Mr KCNaH prged that tin fact.of tho report being satisfactory waS.one grcrind for keeping tho original charges in '! Hansard.” If it was carried the charge wouldjbo made that the Government used its majority to eliminate the original charges so that the people would not bo able to get information as to what those charges oonaiated of Mr Fisher hoped tho original charges would be struck o it, as if they were retained the charges could b) quoted and üb'iaod without reference bo’ng made at tbe same time to the explanation, There was a precedent for taking snob a course as proposed, as on a former occasion the House had agreed to strike out of “Hansard” a rdport of ft speech by Dr Hcdgkinson. If retained in “ Hansard ” nnsornpnlons rise would be made of the charges; Mr Scobib Mackenzie urged that it would not be prober tq expunge the charges fforii ,l Harisafd, which was a record of monlbecs’ speeches, and having once been uttered a speech ought to remain there, whatever other steps were taken to correct the impression created .by any particular speech. The Hon Mr Ward said tha report of the committee, which had been arrived at unanimously,; cleared the reputation of the Premier, and removed an undeserved stigma on hiS dead relative. Under those circumstances ft would be only right to deleto a record which under ordinary circumstances ought never to have appeared in “Hansard,” and so remove an undeserved blemish from the character of tho Premier and the late Mr N. Soddou. The House, ho was sure, Would not t derate this attempt to bespatter tho reputation of tho Premier and hie family merely . for the sake . of party politics. All along the lino every one who had occupied a portion on tho Ministerial Benches had been attacked by those opposed to them in their private capacity, and not upon their pnblio actions, in the attempt t' oust tha Government from office. Instead of tho Opposition displaying magnanimity, they found MrSoobio Mackenzie endeavouring to negative tho good effect of tha committee’s report, and to justify such charges being levelled. Coramm-senso mast show that if tho Premier ha 1 boeu guilty of tho charges made against him it would have been used against him on every occasion ho stood for a public position, and tho fact that that bad not boon dona was tha strongest proof of his innocence.

Mr Duthie pointed out that the Opposition wore no party to tho attack made by tho member for Patna. Tho Opposition took a part on tho oommitlee, and wore imbued with a dasiro to clear tho character of a man in high position, and ho hoped that tho Government wonid bo satisfied -with that and take tho matter no further, if tho motion was not withdrawn ho should have to say a word in Mr Hutebison’s defonen Receiving no reply from tho Government, Mr Dathio wont on to say that tho West Coast papers contained reports of which boro out, or gave prima facit colouring to, tho charges Mr Hutchison made, and to asked if Mr Hutchison was to blatno in making the charges when ho found such was the case. The momber for Patea might very well have been misled, although ho (Mr Duthie) was satisfied ha entm to a wrong conclusion, and it was a mistake for any hon member to *mako such charges, Mr G. Hutchison had intended to make a retractation had not this motion been brought on. Tho Premier, whs spoke with groat emotion, said Mr Dathio had agreed unanimously to tho report, in whioh all tho allega-* tiooa were said to be absolutely disnrovod, but now ho showed no generosity, and in his speech had endeavoured to create a suspicion in the minds of his hearers and of those who might road what ho said that + ho report was not supported by evidence or that ho had evidence whioh would have supported tho allegations. Tho speech of Mr Hutchison in making tho charges was on rocerd for all time, for anyone to road who oarao after him, and all tho House was asked to do was to delete that report from “ Hansard.” The morning after Mr Hutchison had made those sorions charges he wont to the Printing Office and struck out on his own motion tho very paragraphs that tho House was now askod to strike out. Ho then wrote a letter to tho “Hansard” Superintendent stating what he had done, and tolling him to see the Premier. His reply was that ho would be no party to tho deletion, fearing ho might bo accused of doing so because it was correct, and ho therefore left it to Mr Hutchison himself. Later on another altercation took place, and tho member for Patea wrote a second letter to the “ Hansard ” Superintendent tolling him to allow tho paragraphs to remain in the report. Eeforring again to Mr Dathio, ho said nothing so nnjnst as ho had said had boon said by Mr G. Hutchison, and Mr Duthie had not followed tho c pen course taken by Mr Hutchison. In wishing tho report expunged from “ Hansard " ho was looking to tho time when those who now lived would have passed away, and when someone might take down the copy of “ Hansard” and would road what had been said. They would never think of going through tho Blue Books, to see the evidence taken before a Select Committee of the House, and they would ask how, under such circumstances, it was possible that a man who could bo guilty of that could be

Prime Minister of tho colony. Evil-diapoeod persons might quote the report on tho public platforms, and it would be reported again in the newspapers, and ho would have noi redress. He showed ju detail hdvV the report was borne out by the evidence, and yet the Premier had practically again to defend himself from a repeated attack made by tho hon member for Wellington, Mr John Duthio. The member for Paten (Mr Hutchison) and himself (Mr Seddon) had not been the best of friends, but he did not bolievo he wonld have made the speech just delivered by Mr Duthio, who forgot he had been one of bis judges and had given hia decision. Otherwise ho would never have made such a spodoh arid tried to detract from tho Vdlno Of the finding Of tho committee.. , . .

Mr Guinness .contended that tho imputation cast by Mr. Duthiq was unfair and baser than that made by Mr, (3. Hutchison. Ho never theiugut Mr Duthiri would have descended to snob a low level in party politics. ; Whatever was the result of tho motion before tho House, the country would understand that the feeling of the_ majority of tho House was that tho Premier stood without a blemish on his character. (Hoar, h:ar)

Mr Sx.loo, who was chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, repeated a statement made by Mr Duthio, in which ho said ho intended to conduct the investigation as far as lay in his power in a strictly fair and honourable way, and, if justified, to viudioate the Premier ai wholly and completely as he possibly could. Those wore. also, his (Mr Sligo’s) ideas on entering on the inquiry, and the report showed that the investigation had been conducted by gentlemen who, whatever party bias they might have had in other respects, were determined that nothing but justice should be done. Mr Pibani said no good would be done by taking tho course proposed by tho Government.

MrJG. Hutch son hoped tho Government would yet soe that tbo coarse it was pursuing was neither judicial nor fair. After hearing the report and considering the matter ho was prepared to take a certain course which ho hoped would have ended it. He was prepared to give up rauoh to relievo the Premier from charges made against him, bat no such opportunity was afforded him, the motion boingmado, that the reference to tho matter ih his previous speech be expunged The more tho Ministry tried to rub out that speech tho more it would rub it in. The references he felt constrained to make on August 23rd were not directed against tho private but against the pablio character of the Premier. Tho report, it must be remembered, was a report on an ex parte case, and ho refused to appear because he objected to the constitution of tho committee. Ho aasertjd that ths evidence he had seen was ludicrously one-sided, Out as far as he Could sop tho eomiiiittce could have arrived at no other conclusion. Ho hiid nevef intended to reflect on tho memory of the Premier’s dead relative. He had wished to delete from his speech tho reference to that matter, but before that was done tho Premier made a violent attack upon one associated with him, and he (Mr Hutchison) then said it was vain to think of taking anything out. At ,11.30 p.m. Mr Allen moved aa an amendment —• “ That all the volumes of 1 Hansard ’ containing the speech of tho hon member for Patea(MrG. Hutchison) in the financial debate on tho 23rd August last to bo hereafter issued should contain an inset opposite the said speech bearing the words Eor report of tho committee ia .reference to tho allegations by tho hdn membot for Ffttea against the Bight Hon B. J. Seddon, see page of tho appendix to tho Journals of the House.”

The amendment was negative! by 32 rotes to SI. . , , .. TnS Mh)lsl ! eb df liAfiD3 Said.if; sifter the throat of Mr Dutliie, he had withdrawn the motion, he Would riot have been wdrtliy to sit on those benches, besides ythioh ho knew that Mr ooiild ndt aiy daytHing for iyllioh ho or, lha colleagues nesid . cafe one straw. No min with any spirit in him could accept suoh an offer as Mr Duthio made. The mpmbor.a of. the Government were assailed behind,, tlieic.. banks,, and., .insinuations .made bgaitiat'their perabnal character, and it was their duty to expose tneni. There had. been a conspiracy against the character of tho I’rcmler, and ia the Courts of Law tho Premier would be entitled to heavy damages from those who wore responsible tor tho charges At 1.20 a.m, the motion to expunge Mr Hutchison’s speech from “ Hansard ’ was put arid carried by 35 to 21,