Mr Fisher’s Resignation.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4980, 12 April 1889, Page 2

Mr Fisher’s Resignation.

(By Telegraph,} WELLINGTON, April 11. In the course of an interview with Mr Fisher that gentleman said that the general idea that hisj resignation was brought about through a difference of opinion on the prosecutions under the Beer Duty Act was scarcely correct. There wore much more serious disagreements than that. He was at variance with the Cabinet on such important questions as the composition of the railway board and the peculiar treatment of Mr Kee, the English expert; the appointment of a successor to the late Mr Justice Johnston; the behaviour of certain Ministers in the Gtasparini affair ; the To Kooti expedition ; the leasing of the Canterbury runs ; the public exposition by the Premier of his views on the question of land nationalisation and pauper farms, and the necessity of proposing a modification of the property tax. Ho differed too from the Premier upon the uncalled’for and unnecessary expenditure on costly surveys connected with the proposed divergence of the North Island trunk line and the StratfordTaranaki route. That being the case he could not concede the Premier the right to select a particular and much less momentous question, wherein no political principle at all was involved, upon which to force his resignation. It was altogether a false issue. With regard to the beer prosecutions the facts were that on returning from Victoria in December last he was met by a telegram asking him to stop proceedings against a Wellington brewer. After making inquiries ho forebore to interfere and gave instructions that all the offenders were to be prosecuted without fear or favour. Some cases were taken into court where the hearing lasted a long time, and in the meantime the defendant, on whose behalf the telegram had been sent to him, threw himself on the mercy of the Customs Department. In such cases it was quite customary to deal with them off-hand, but he preferred to let his colleagues have a say in the matter and called a Cabinet meeting. Owing to the Premier’s absence it could not be held till March 4th, the last day on which an information could be laid, and so much discussion took place that the olllce of tho clerk of the court was closed before they had determined to prosecute. Ho was not to blame for that, and besides they had tho letter of tho defendant submitting himself to the judgment of tho department. The other cases which were not barred by the limitation of time are going on as the Cabinet ordered. Ho had nothing to bo ashamed of, and had done nothing which could not be defended in Parliament. As has been alleged ho resigned because he felt he was in a false position, and could no longer act with the Government. Ho had not been the originator or the cause of a single personal disagreement in the Cabinet, though personal differences had occurred between some of the members and a considerable divergence of opinion existed.

The Premier was also interviewed, and askedjwhether he bad anything to say on the subject of Mr Fisher’s resignation. On being told that his former colleague had submitted to the same ordeal, he said;—"The only reason, so far as I know, for Mr Fisher's leaving the Cabinet is the non-prosecution of the Jnnction Brewery Company. It was upon this I asked him to retire. Mr Fit her ■

never expressed to me, as Premier, any dissatisfaction with the doings of the Cabinet on any point. The differences alleged as reasons for leaving are all new to me, I never heard from Mr Fisher any objection to the action of the Cabinet on any one of those points until I received his letter conveying his resignation. On some of these, which are now said to bo serious points of difference, Mr Fisher’s views were actually given effect to. It was the beer duty case alone on which ho was asked to resign. It is impossible at this stage to go into any particulars, as it would be fair neither to Mr Fisher nor the Government. lam still in correspondence with him, which is absolutely necessary to elicit the true facts of the case, and as soon as it is closed I shall bo very glad to see it published.

It may be mentioned in this connection that a letter appears in the Post to-night, signed by the Premier, explicitly denying the statement that he went out to the Lower Hntt on Sunday to consult the Speaker of the Legislative Council on the situation. The Premier says that ho went there to visit his con ; that ho did not attempt to see Sir William Fitzherbert, and had no communication with him directly or indirectly on the subject. The Premier also refers to a statement in the Waikato Times that a seat in the Cabinet hud been offered to Mr J. B. Whyte, member for Waikato, and to the statement that Mr Fisher’s portfolio had been offered to an Auckland member before the Minister of Education had resigned. He confirms the denial telegraphed some days ago by the Press Association, and says: —“ No portfolio or seat in the Cabinet has been offered either directly or indirectly to any person since the the Government was completed in 1886.”