The Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1876.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 59, 29 June 1876, Page 2

The Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1876.

In our telegraphic columns will be found an excellently condensed report by the Press Agency of the lively debate in the House last evening, on the desirability of placing Mr. Hkes on the Public Accounts I Committee. From the report it will be ' seen that the discussion was both hot and personal. Mr. Rees will be remembered as the gentleman who made a most vehement rlioclomontade on Sir JcucsVooELat a public meeting in Auckland the night previous to the Premier's departure for England on his loan mission. Mr. Rees is a barrister possessed to a large extent with what is vulgularly known as "the gift of the gab," and on the occasion to which we refer he made a most slashing attack on the Premier and lu's Government. It was the Auckland barrister who declared that the Government were unable to repay the deposits made by the public in the Post Office Savings Bank. He even went further, and stated that the Government were using the fluids of the Savings Bank to meet outstanding liabilities. These assertions caused considerable stir at the time they were made, but on inquiry it was fotmd that they were, to a great extent, devoid of any foundation. Mr. Rees, like many other able young members of the Opposition, spoils himself by speaking too blatantly and too often. These clever men, when continually on their legs, are looked upon as wind-bags, and their speeches do not carry that weight, which they would, if only made at the proper season, and when an absolute expression of opinion is looked for. One member (Mr. Moobhocse) last night expressed an opinion that he should not vote for Mr. Rees being on placed on the Public Accounts Committee because of Ida

financial ignorance and offensive declamatory style. Now, while we do not believe in the declamatory style of Mr. Bees, we cannot overlook the fact that the Government exhibited a mean spirit in opposing him as a member of the Committee. It looks very much as if the Premier were afraid of the Auckland luminary, and as if there were some hidden motive in endeavouring to prevent Mr. Bees being on the Committee. Perhaps the Premier thinks that it would not do to have too many lawyers to supervise the Public Account—at any rate, whatever may be the motive for the animus displayed against Mr. Bees, we think the Government cannot be congratulated on the action they took in the mrtter. Altogether, the debate must have been pretty lively, and something out of the common. The result of the discussion was that Mr. Bees was not placed on the Committee.