THE MEMBER FOR HAWERA.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6269, 24 July 1907, Page 4

THE MEMBER FOR HAWERA.

At tho request o c the member for Hawora wo publish elsewhere in this issue the statement 1 which he made when asked for an explanation last Friday by tho Premier in connection with tho memorandum'attached to-his Lamps on Vehicles ’Bill. Mr Major, takes grave exception to a remark made in tho columns of this paper by a writer who, says Mr Major, writes under the mm do plume of “Bird's-eye View.” Our contributor, remarking on tho incident in the House, happened tp say “that making bad jokes and fathering them on others, was not a proceeding to bo indulged in with : a light heart.” . We should have said ; that this was q moderate comment on. the case. Mr Major calls it a “lie.’' Here tho member for Hawcra has us at a This is a kind of language, which may he permissible in Parliament and in “Hansard,” -but which lies quite outside the vocabulary of respectable journalism. : If wo were bo far to forget ourselves as to say that in the “perambulator” incident the hen. the member fw Haw-era was from first to last'in word and action unveracious, wo should never pardon ourselves for being so , ill-bred. ..We take elaborate, pains, however, to i say no' such tiling. A gentleman , holding the position occupied by the member, for. Haw-era could not do otherwise than speak the truth. Therefore, we 'can account for bis explanation to Parliament, irrelevant for tho most part' and, where not irrelevant, extraordinary,, by assuming that Air Major is labouring .under a mistake ■and that ho has forgotten the details of the incident. First, it would appear that, in tacking on to this Bill a memorandum which the member for ‘Motueka and other. members of the House pardonably interpreted as ajf insulting impertinence to the House, Mr Major intended no joke at all. On this point all wo can say js that in; dealing with such a serjous subject as the lighting of wheelbarrows and perambulators Mr Major adopted’a jocularity of tope and manner much at variance with his alleged seriousness of purpose. Wo are quite willing to leave: if to be determined by member? of the -House wbo wore present and, by the Press Gallery whether the tone and manner of the member for: Haw-era were such as to suggest that he took tho matter seriously.: But whether Mr Major intended or’did not intend the memorandum as a joke, the point is ■that the memorandum was his, and that ho was listening when the member for Motueka characterised the puerile absurdity as an, impertinence committed by the Crown law draftsman, and intimated that the salary allowed . to that gentleman w.aa illearned by such insults to the House; and, indeed, the member for Motueka would have been entirely in the right had it been believable or conceivable that such an imbecile memorandumcould come from such a source as tho Crown law office. Now; at this point, the only possible course for the member fpr Hawora to have taken, believing, as ho professes to believe, the "perambulator” memorandum to he a rational and satisfactory addition . to tho Bill, would have been rp defend the memorandum against tho scathing strictures of the member for Motueka. Ho ought to have said: “I find nothing wrong with the memorandum, and, as I am in charge of the Bill, the member for Motueka should direct his criticism

to me.” But Mr Major forgets that ho himself regarded tho memorandum as a piece of the most exquisite tooling, and that it was a painful discovery for him to make, that tho House did not regard tho imbecility in the same light. Tho member for Hawcra probably forgets this because tiro incident took .place nearly a week ago. It may be gathered from Mr Major’s somewhat foggy statement to the House that hesupposed the memorandum to have been actually placed where it was by tho Grown Haw ofixer. Indeed, he “felt for tho moment under an obligation to tho Crown Law Officer for having had tho goodness to place tho memolandum there.” It is clear that the member for Hawora has a sensitive recognition of benefits received; but his gratitude to tho Crown Law Officer oil this occasion ms evidently not equal to tho task of attempting to stem Mr MoKenzio’s wrath against tho gentleman who had laid him “under the obligation.” Mr Major, it appears, had brought with him from Hawera tho document containing tho memorandum, which document. was to ho tho basis of tho Bill ho intended to father, and so it was j>asscd on to tho reader. Does Mr Major intend us to suppose that ho had not road this .document—tho BiJI which had passed its second reading in the House of Commons on March 15th last, which contained the “perambulator’' memorandum, and which was to form the basis of his own Bill? If this is so; it is in-' deed a carious “inadvertence”—“honest” poMMy. but unintelligible. Mr Major may sit on whichever horn of tho dilemma he finds the more comfortable. He, listened to tho scathing remarks of the member for Motueka against tho Grown Law Officer. If ho considered the Bill all right as it stood, with its memorandum, so much tho worse for his intelligence. But why in that oaso did ha allow tho Crown Haw Officer to bo impeached? If tho memorandum was a sorry jest, equally, why did ho allow, tho Grown Law Officer to boar tho brunt? In'the meantime it would ha interesting if a copy could ho produced, just as it came into the hands of the honourable member _ for Hawera, of the Ball that passed its second reading in the British House of Commons on the 15th pf March,