Daily Circulation, 1500. The Oamaru Mail SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1890.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XV, Issue 4724, 19 July 1890, Page 2

Daily Circulation, 1500. The Oamaru Mail SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1890.

The Otago Witness contains a note this week in whioh there is a presumption that Mr Hutchison's ohargea against Ministers in connection with the Bank of New Zealand are entirely baseless. This presumption is formed upon the grounds that Mr Hutohlaon is a " comparatively unknown man of the order oommonly known as smart," and that he may not, therefore, adequately feel his responsibility. The writer solely la not troubled with either the virtuea or the vices he attributes to Mr Hutohison. Bat th'se are not all the arguments of the writer. Bis extraordinary views are not capable of proof in a few words. He, therefore, says that Mr Hutchison haß made unsnppurted statements, and sesames that Mr Hutchison was in pettioatß when the men against whom he brings the charges were the country's faithful servants. He takeß no heed of the poa ibillty that the oountry may have reposed trust in men who were unworthy of relianoe, and that the circumstance that the accused were, perhaps, born before their aoouser Is no satisfactory guarantee of honesty on the one part and of unreliability on the other. The Glasgow Bank direotora were trusted servants, but they were proved to be hoary-headed sinners. Waring Taylor waa an old and trusted servant, but he waa detested in a serious crime, which he is expiating within the precincts of one of her Majsaty's prlsona. When suspicion arose that these men had been guilty of wrong-doing, the comparative juvenility of their acousers, or their obscurity, or the faot that their statements were "unsupported" did not arrest investigation. 1 he writer, in urging, amongst other things, that Mr Hutohison's statements are unworthy of notice beoause they are unsupported, virtually says that no accusations of misbehavior should be investigated, for all acousatioDS are nnsupported till they are subjected to inquiry. The writer insinuates, too, in hia difficulty to plead effectually the cauae of the notable persona involved ia the soandal that "the honor of New Zealand" is safer in the keeping of those personß and their friends than it is in that of Mr Hutohison and the other men who insist on having the matter sifted. We hold that the " honor of New Zealand " ia in the keeping; not of men who may have abused for their own purposes the positions in which they were placed by the people, but of those who insist upon the purity of our administrators at whatever coßt. The investigation that is now in progress is necessary from every point of view. If the accused have been gnilty of the Bin attributed to them, the oolony will rid itself of men whose baseness would admit of no excuse. If they are Innocent they will be cleared of the dreadful stigma that attaches to them. In conolnslon, we would remind the writer in the Witness that when Mr Hutchison made a reference to oertaln matters in the House in connection with defence, the Minister, believing that it was impossible for Mr Hutchison to have made himself acquainted with facts that were supposed to be known only to the Ministry, and a military expert, who was in England, stoutly contradioted Mr Hutohison's assertions. But Mr Hutchison was right, and the Minister had to admit it. On that occasion Mr Hutchison waa not too young to tell the truth, though a Minister was old enough to deal in falsehood.