THE NEW LIBERALS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2683, 16 August 1905, Page 30

THE NEW LIBERALS.

THE CAPTAIN SEDDON TOUCHER.

MR FISHER IN THE HOUSE.

WELLINGTON. August 9.

As soon as formal business was disposed of in the House of Representatives ibis afternoon, Mr Fisher rose and read the following letter, which he had sent to the Hon. the Speaker of the House that morning: — "Sir,— On the 29Ui Jtily, during the debafe on the last Imprest Supply Bill. I made reference to a payment of about £70, which I alleged had been made to Captain R. J. Scddon for services connected with the reorganisation of the Defence stores. On that ocoaeron I unfortunately gave the number of a Treasury voucher which proved to be inaccurate, and which represented a payment made to Messrs J. and A. Anderson, Limited, Christchurch. Whilst I was, on the 28th July, assured of the truth o^ my statement with regard to a payment having been made to Captain Seddon such as I referred to, I was not at the moment; able to bring forward tangible evidence in support of my statement before the House. I was further somevAat handicapped in dealing with the matter on the 28th July, and on the subsequent occasion on which the alleged payment to Captain Seddon was discussed, by my slight experience of the standing orders and the limitations they imposs on members. Feeling, however, that the question involves grave consequences to myself as a public man, and to the Ministry as the trustees of the -publicfunds of the colony, I wish to approach you upon the subject. " In spite of the documentary denials fronk certain public officers wi^i regard to the alleged payment to Captain Seddon, I repeat my contention that such a payment as I have referred to was made. "I desire that this Parliament should appoint a tribunal that shall command public* confidence, with a view to decide the question in dispute. I propose to ask the Premier to set up such a tribunal, and confer upon it power to -call for the papers and persons, and to take all evidence upon, oath. "As a justification for the request I intend making for an exhaustive and immediate inquiry, I place in your hands a sealed envelope, containing a number of affidavits, duly sworn-, from certain civil servants, who declare that they can prove the voucher I referred to on July 28 was passed through the Treasury, by virtue of which the payment was made to Captain R. J. Seddon of the sum I named for reorganising defence stores. "In challenging the accuracy of the official statements placed before th_ House by the Right Hon. the Premier by way of refutation of my charge in this matter, the civil servants, whose affidavits I entrust to your care, recognise that they are endangering their position in the public service^ and as they are permanent officers, the financial risk they incur is great. I intend asking the Right Hon. the Premier to extend an indemnity to any civil servant who shall give evidence on this matter, as I believe the highest interests of the colony's political life justify such an indemnity to any public officer who assists in settling th& matter in dispute between the Government and myself. "In the event of this being done, I desire you to hand to the chairman of any tribunal appointed to deal with this jmatter the affidavits now handed to you. If such indemnity is not granted I T/ill endeavour to obtain authority to hanr 1 over the affidavits unconditionally, and vill communicate with you later with regard to this point. "I trust that you wil' accept custody of the enclosed papers as 7 desire to have this question settled decisively, and as speedily as possible." Mr Fisher then movtd that this letter lie on tha table and be pointed. Mr Seddon asked the Sp°aker what he proposed to do in the matt&r. The Speaker said he had r-eceiyed Mr Fisher's letter and the sealed affidavits. He had been asked by Mr Fisher to read the letter to the House, and declined to do so. Mr Seddon asked the House to refuse leave to lay the paper on the table. Members should see the danger of making such a precedent. The Speaker was to hold a sealed packet which was said to hold affidavits from civil servants. They knew not; what was in it; and if such a course were> adopted who was safe? He had never heard of «ueh a proposal. There waa a course open. There would be an opportunity in the course of business, when each member would have a fair chance. The Secretary to the Treasury and other officials had denied that such a payment was made, but if the proposed course were to be pursued there was an end to conducting business in a manner of safety to the civil service, ihe Government, and the members. Ho defied any member to discover a precedent such as was now proposed to be set up. Mr Fisher could do again on another occasion what he did before. On that occasion he> gave the name and date and amount. To-day he could have given particulars in the letter to the Speaker. Why had he not given the number of the voucher, and the amount and the date of the alleged payment? Mr Tavlor: You will get it all right. Mr Seddon said he had every confidence in those with whom he was connected. If Mr FisheT had adopted a fair course, he (the Premier) would have had an opportunity for rebuttal He was asked to indemnify civil servants for a gross violation of the law, which would shatter pubhc ccnfidi?nce in the service. Mr Taylor: It wiU. Mr Seddon urged that members should not. without knowing what they wero doing, accept a sealed parcel, which was alleged to contain certain things. Mi* Fisher had been proved wrong when he waa specific, and he (the Premier) felt certain that tho s.me rebuttal would come in this case. They were asked to give an indemnity for violating the laws of tho country Thoy did not. know what officers might be alluded to. It would be a dangerous precedent to lay these papers on the table. There was an object in the pro* posal. Mr Fishor wanted to pose 4,3 a, maityr. The Speaker would probably return him the package. Why should this attempt be made? He should have thought Mr Fisher would have told the House clearly and plainly that he would make his renewed charge at the proper time and in the proper way. As to the proposed inquiry, he said it was usual for ths accuser to state the charges before an inquiry oouM bp held. That had not been done in this ease. The course proposed was unfair, un-

just, and improper. Mr Fisher could make ois" charge another time, and if the answer were not complete other steps might be taken. The House should refuse the course proposed, which would be a dangeroivprecedent, and open the door to senoiu malpractices by men who did not care whom they ruined so long as their vindictiveness was satisfied. When he knew what was to be met he would take the same course as ho had taken before. Ii the question were left to the people of the colony they would say they would take the honourable course of letting- the accused know what the charges were. Mr Massey said the statement had been made that an improper payment had been made to Captain Seddon. He would a>pport an inquiry en the simple issue of •whether the payment had been made. As to the letter to the Speaker, he thought it should be laid on the table and printed. Mr Bedford said he had seen the affidavits and read them, and he could say that they were by civil servants ,at present in the employ of the colony, and he woul-J stake his reputation on their genuineness - Mr Seddon: What do they refer to? 3 Mr Bedford: They refer to the Seddon payment. There was one difference between the Sneddon voucher and the one suggested by Blr Fisher. The Sneddon verfbher did not refer to reorganisation cf •defence stores. The names of the civil servants would be divulged before an impartial inquiry. They knew all the risks. and yet had given the affidavits to Mr Fisher, and he urged that the inquiry should be'made, so that everyone connected with it might be cleared. The country would not be satisfied till the matter vras probed to the bottom. The Hon. W. Hall-Jones said that tbe sea-led packet might- contain matter which should not b3 said about any memLer of the House, and yet they were asked to grant an inquiry on the strength of something which they could not even see. The civil servants who had made these affidavits had attacked a fellow civil servant in a dastardly manner, and he was surprised that any member of the Houie should lend himself to such a- proceeding. He ridiculed the statement by Mr Bedford that the country was in a ferment, and declared that when the New Liberal party did address a. real public meeting the people -would not listen to it. If, continued Mr Hall- Jones, a payment was made to Captain. Seddon there must be a voucher for it, and if it was an illegal payment how was it that the Audit Office passed it. He was satisfied the Hoa*o would recognise that the attitude of Mr Fisher was not one which should receive the support of members. Mr Major opposed the granting of en indemnity, and said if the civil servants involved were right- they did not need an indemnity. It had been said that the country was in a ferment over these charges, but .it wa3 a ferment of disgust at the action of- the members, who were making them. Mr W. Fraser said he did not like vague charges of any kind, and would not be 'a party to having the papers laid on the table before knowing more about the charges. If Mr Fisher went about the matter in the proper way he (Mr Fraser) would be the first to support him. ' Mr Millar was opposed to the motion, and was opposed also" to the proposal to grant an inquiry. Public opinion would seejthat no man would come to harm for acting in the public good. Mr Millar urged that- Mr Fisher should give the number and particulars of the voucher, and he ■would walk into the lobby behind him on a motion for inquiry. v The Hon. 0. H. Mills complained that Mr Fisher had not apologised to Captain Seddon for having failed to substantiate the charge against him, and that he now desired to cast a slur on those .who had refuted the charge. Not a single charge made had been proved. The party which had made these oharges had already lost its political reputation over the matter. Mr Duthie said the charge was of a most grave order, and the honour of the House demanded that it should be investigated. Mr Seddon: Don't you think we ought to have something specific? Mr Duthie said the charge was sufficiently specific, and he hoped the Premier would give full opportunity for inquiry. Mr R. M'Kenzie considered that if a specific charge was made the House would support the demand for an inquiry. Mr Moss said this was a simple question. Should trustees fear an inquiry into the way they handle money trusted to them? Why co much mystery if the Government had nothing to fear? Mr Fisher replied at 4.30 p.m. He did not, h& said, want to suggest a fraudulent payment, but a payment was made, and , they wanted to know what it was for. If particulars were refused these must be some-thing-wrong about it. As to the cEarge, the makers of the affidavits swore Wat they had handled the voucher making payment to Captain Seddon of between £70- and £80 las.t year. If the Premier and the Treasury officials were not aware of the voucher there •was a bigger swindle going on than had at present been disclosed. If the Premier had nothing to fear, let him grant an inquiry "before a judge or judges of the Supreme Court. At present it was dangerous for a civil servant to tell the truth, and that was why they asked for an indemnity. He was iopeful, however, that he would be able in a few days to give their evidence without an indemnity. He had no wish to do the Premier or " Captain Seddon an injustice, but he was doing what he believed to be Ihis duty. Having the sworn affidavits _of •three civil servants he was bound to, bring the matter up. They were absolutely certain that there could be no confounding Sneddon's voucher with Seddon's voucher. If he was proved to be wrong he would make all the reparation possible; but he would not do that unless an inquiry was held r lf he did -not succeed on this occasion he would not let the matter rest. ' On a division Mr Fishers motion that leave be given to lay the letter on the table •was lost by 46 votes to 21. .. The following i« the division list:— • For the Motion (21).— Messrs Aitken, Alison, •Bedford, Buchanan, Duthie, Fisher, Harding, Hardy, Hawkins, Herdnian, Hemes, Kirkfcfide, Lang, Laurenson, Mander, Massey, Mackenzie, Moss, Rhodes, Taylor, Vile. ■Against the , Motion (46).— Messrs E. (xAllen, Arnold, Barber, Baume, Bennet, Buclclo, Carroll, Colvin, Davey, Duncan, Ell, Field, IFlatman, Fowlds W. Fraser, Hall, Hall-Jones, Manan, Heke, 'Hcgg, Houston, Jennings, iLawry, LetKbriage, Lewis, Major, M'uowan, B: M'Kenzie, JfLachlan, M'Nab, Millar, Mills, Pere, Remington, Rutherford, Seddon. Sidey, Smith, Steward, Symes. Tanner, J. C. Thomson, J. W. Thomson, Willis, Witt)', Wood. Padrs— For Motion: Mr Jsrnics Allen. Against Motion: Sir J. G-. Ward. Mr Seddon then rose and remarked

' that during the course of the debate i term had been applied to an officer of th< Treasury, the postmaster at Christchurch and the Under-secretary for Defence. Them was in the colony, he said, an Auditor anc Controller-general, and that term having been applied that officer and his department I were impugned. j Mr Massey: What was the term? Mr Seddon : " Swindler." When thai had occurred it would r>e for the- Auditoi and Controller-general to take a course which he (Mr Seddon) hoped would tw taken, and then we would see what woulc be the position of these civil servants anc those members. This closed the incident, and at E p.m. the adjournment of the House was moved, and a discussion on Ministerial replies to questions was entered upon.