MR WARD'S DEFENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2209, 2 July 1896, Page 3

MR WARD'S DEFENCE.

' As the Hon. Mr Waed has had the opportunity of saying all he had to' pay in his own derence and- placing Jhis ~ case in what he deems the mostfavourW&ble light, "if seems desirable to go over .'.tow defence, and inquire wh»fc iy may

be. worth. ; In order to do so it is necessary to throw aside all the irrelevant :• and extraneous matter with which his speech in the House was, unhappily loaded, and select only what really touched upon his own affairs, public and private. And here it is needless to remark that such criticism to be of any value should be absolutely dispassionate and written only in the interests of truth and, of public morality. First' of all then, Mr Ward would have the colony believe he has been the victim of a conspiracy to ruin him. We do not suppose that Mr Ward's warmest friends and- sympathisers really believe this ridiculous charge, which, after all, is but the stock-in-trade of those in trouble who want to excite public sympathy. Whether believed or not, it is sufficient to point out that the facts most completely disprovedt. If the men whom Mr Ward, :'4e&g-nates'! as /'conspirators — and, it is jodd^thal they, 'should have singled out •Mr^^AßD^froni^other members' of the'rCibinetrr-had .-never opened ■ their mouths; from' ttiej very commencement of the matter till the end, "every thing in connection with the Ward case would have happened exactly as it has happened. Or, to put the matter con.versely, if, the alleged conspirators had never relaxed their efforts night or day for two years back to . ruin Mr Ward, they would not have exercised the Smallest influence ■on the course of affairs. That- must be obvious to anyone, who has intelligence enough to follow- the successive steps of the business. The plajn' fact is that when a man overruns his account by .£IOO,OOO and' is only worth he ruins himself without the assistance of con-

spirators. Dealing with the more public charge inferentially brought against him (and let it here be remembered that it is brought against him, not by his opponents,.but. by a clause in the printed contract betweea the two banks, which .none of his' opponents understood when it .passed the Houses)^ that he xhad stood to materially gain by the legislation he was urging upon Parliament, Mr Ward's tlefence is peculiarly unfortunate. What is the defence ? In substance he says, " I am supposed to have had, an interest in the sale of the j Colonial Bank, but see now what it has done for me ; lam utterly ruined." The answer to this plea is simple — most unhappily so. The bank legislation was in its initiation calculated to benefit him. By the merest accident it failed to do so in the end. The Colonial Bank wrote a sum of .£55,150 off the account of the. Ward Association in the full belief "that the Bank of .;New -Zealand would then take the over* Had the latter institution done so Mr Ward would for some time at least have been in a comparatively smooth haven. There would have been no apparent insolvency, no disclosures, and no , liquidation of the Ward Association. But the Bank of New Zealand directors, fortunately for their institution (and the colony of course), saw that the sum of 150 was not.enoughto throw overboard, and they : re'fusecl. ■ account,, It jyas then thafc~,di|aster; over.toot' Mr • Ward. The scheme' 5 was' "fairly . enough calculated to succeed, but it did not succeed ; that is the plain fact of the matter. Mr Ward, in further defence, says that had he to abuse his position for the purpose of saving himself and avoiding publicity " he could have done it by direct stipulation with' Mr Murrat,aud that, as » matter of fact, ke had aa

offer from that gentleman to' be taken over by the" Bank of New Zealand. It is perfectly obvious that no, man in his senses, however, insensible to" the voice of honour and of conscience, would have adopted so dangerous a course, and committed so , damning a secret; to the keeping of anyone, when by standing aside and allowing the banks to amalgamate he could have effected the, same purpose in a perfectly safe .way.' *In saying this we are -dealing solely with the sufficiency or otherwise of Mr .Ward's defence. But,' for ourselves,' we do not believe Mr Ward had any corrupt 1 motive in promoting the bank legislation. As it was being promoted he could riot fail to see that if successfully carried out he would be the gainer,! And in going on with it he was without doubt guilty of gross impropriety,' but Ye do not think that more can be honestly laid to his charge. A man of' stiff mortal "'fibre would, have refused- to have" 1 anything to do with it. He' "would have said, " % am,a client and,a large debtor of this bank and I will have ■nothing "to do ' with'. any %" scheme /from the promotion of -which' I. 'shall be a material gainer." Failure to take suph a course .is what on this head se.ems to us to have been the sum and substance o£ Mr Ward's offence. And here in justice to him we are bound to mention one thing urged by him which is very decidedly in. his favour — namely,' that in the first instance, overtures were made to the .National rather than to the> Colonial Bank! If that be true, and the negotiations were .^genuine, and if there was no intention then of negotiating with the Colonial Bank, it is certainly a strong point in his favour — the only one, unfortunately, we can discover throughout his entire speech. Coming to the very grave matters more immediately connected with his private trading, we are bound to say Mr Ward's defence is most distressingly weak. As regards the notorious draft for .£30,000,' his defence is really his condemnation. He lays stress upon the fact that on his return from England he " stopped the draft from going forward."' Why did he stop it ? Clearly ; because lie knew "the bogus nature' of it,' That proves at i least that he did pay some attention to \ the details of his business, and was very much alive to the danger of what was being done. ' And yet with that knowledge of the nature .of the draft lie , allowed it to stand in reduction of liabilities in his association's balance sheet, and actually signed that document as a true and ! correct statement of the association's affairs ! TJie evidence as to this draft is the most damning that stands against him, and yet'he urges his complete knowledge df its characters an item of his defence. Still greater v difficulty does Mr Ward involve himself in when he urges in his defence, that the draft " was never redebited- to the association." - Mr Vigors, in his evidence before the court, distinctly stated that it was so redebited.' In answer to- the- question, "What became of the draft ? " the latter replied : "It was afterwards. recharged to the Ward Farmers' Association." Let us, however, leave this conflict of 'testimony to be settled in the course, of further inquiry, and now only see what Mr Ward's defence in ■ connection with the draft amounts to. If there is any meaning in words, the position he takes up is this: In substance he says, "I stopped that draft from going forward, because it was a' bogus draft, and had no,, oats behind it. ?bat

proves my -Ixonesty of. intention." j Then tie, would add, " That draft was • never redebited to the association, which ! proves (it is • the only inference) that \it was an honest draft." The arguj ment is, of course, inconsistency itself. But if it is not Mr Ward's meaning j tlien we can assign no other to his words. We have now gone fully into the substance of. Mr Ward's defence, ; omitting nothing so far as we are aware, and we have read his speech ' most carefully. We' should have been glad enough had he been able to make a better case for himself. , There is apparently a good deal of sympathy ■ felt for Mr Ward in various quarters, J arid we should be very loth to attempt to minimise to him such comfort as he can derive from it. * We do not believe that it implies any sympathy with wrongdoing. It is probably due to the recognition of Mr Ward's personal" good : qualities and the further fact that'he seems to be the sole sufferer from the recent revelations, 'while it is pretty certain there are other^culprits behind the scenes. They must all be dealt with, too, though that can hardly be done with any justice until further i inquiry makes clear their measure of culpability. In the case of Mr Henry ' Mackenzie, the general manager of the Bank, of New Zealand, we believe that - in the interests of that institution — now > the interests of the colony — the directors i should at once consider the question of ,i, i the propriety of that gentleman re-.. taining his position. We think also it is high time the Government were taking into consideration the position of Mr Watson, in the same connection. 1 Inquiry also must -be made into the proceedings of the late directors of the Colonial Bank. 'It will be a public scandal if the matter | is allowed to drift out of public notice. ; And there is but, too much reason, to

fear that that is the aim and object of Mr Seddon in setting up a committee that for purposes of inquiry will be every whit as " bogus " as the , celebrated oats warrants. '