SIR FREDERICK WHITTAKER'S MISTAKE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1905, 25 May 1888, Page 21

SIR FREDERICK WHITTAKER'S MISTAKE.

Although no one in the Colony can seriously suppose that the Attorney*general meant to say anything which would imply that the Colony would become insolvent if the Loan Bill were not passed, it is very evident that he made one of those loose statements which are capable of misconstruction, and are liable to do serious damage in connection with matters of this kind. From the varying explanations given by himself in the Council and by the Premier in the House yesterday afternoon, Sir F. Whitaker is apparently not quite sure either what he said or what he meant. His own version is that " what he did say was that if the Bill was not. " passed the finances of the Colony would be " confused"; whilst according to the Premier,

who was not quite so straightforward over the matter as could be wished, he did not refer to the finances of the Colony but to the private position of Ministers as indi'ddually responsible for engagements entered into under the belief that the Loan Bill would be authorised. In cases of this kind it is often honestly difficult for a man to remember either what he s>aid or meant to say, and either version of the Attorney general's meaning is probable enough; but the evidence of Messrs Reeves and Turnbull, coupled with the Premier's remarks, make it pretty plain that what Sir F. Whitaker actually did say was " We will be compelled "to file our schedule," — the "we" being naturally taken by the hearers to mean " the " Colony." Whether it was merely a loose, exaggerative way of saying that the finances of the Colony would be confused, or a playful allusion to the gravity of Ministerial responsibility for unauthorised expenditure, it is difficult to judge. That there is anything beneath the Attorney-general's remarks beyond the pretty obvious fact that with nearly three-quarters of a million of the North Island Trunk loan spent in advance, the Government must finance until they are able to raise the loans now authorised we do not for a moment believe ; but it is to be feared that English critics of the Colony, such as the Standard, may make mischief out of the Attorney-general's unfortunate remark, and we would urge upon Ministers the desirability of putting the Agentgeneral in a position to be able to immediately explain the meaning of the Attorney-general, if his words as reported in the press should be quoted against vs — i.e., the Colony — when the loan is placed on the maiket. We would further point out that as the want of importance of these remarks will be best proved by the Financial Statement, it is highly desirable that that Statement should be issued in time to catch the next mail, and be readable on the Stock Exchange before the loan is floated. How the name of the Bank of New Zealand came to be introduced into the affair we cannot understand, for it is evident that Sir F. Whitaker made no allusion to it, and the Evening Press' account of the dangerous mysteries revealed to Mr Fulton and the influence exercised by Sir Robert Stout appears toise- an exaggsration of such very simple matters as that the Premier pointed out in private to Mr Fulton the urgency of passing the loan, and asked him to use his influence with his fellow members to smooth its passage, whilst Sir Robert Stout probably expressed privately to some members of the Opposition who spoke to him on the subject, his opinion that the loan should be allowed to pass without opposition. From beginning to end, in fact, there seems to have been a great deal of the old process of making mountains out of molehills. The Attorney-general's remark was certainly unfortunate, but it has no real importance.