Mr Geo. Fisher’s Explanation.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5027, 7 June 1889, Page 3

Mr Geo. Fisher’s Explanation.

At the commencement of his address to his constitutents of Wellington East last Monday evening, Mr Geo. Fisher tried to ‘‘put himself right ” with them regarding the quarrels which had resulted in his retirement from the Cabinet. He began by quoting Napoleon’s remark that all great battles were lost and won through some small incident —and be would show his audience ho.w a Minister of the Crown might lose his position through a small beer incident. For the last year ho had lain under the imputation that ho had intrigued against his colleague Mr Mitchclson. The time had now come when the imputation should bo cleared away j lie would explain the whole thing. A corporation contractor asked permission to carry spoil across the reclamation and wished to put down a crossing. The permission was refused by the Minister for Public Works, but was subsequently granted by a Cabinet meeting, at which four persons were present. He himself bad stated that lie voted in favour of the request. Nothing more. The next thing ho heard however, was that “ Mr. Mitchclson bad resigned because he would not permit Mr Fisher’s interference,” but tbo resignation was afterwards withdrawn. As a Wellington representative he was asked later on to put a question on the Order Paper, and this he declined to do, being a Minister, but took it into the House, saying he would give it to the first member he met-who was Mr Cadman. Mr Cadman agreed to auk the question (which referred to the Government Printing Office contract, as to whether an extension of time had been granted, whether penalties had been enforced and so on.) Ho put it to them that that could not be construed into an attack on a colleague. If the question was aimed at any one at all it was aimed at the previous Government. He had explained that to a man in a high position in Auckland, who asked him why he had not made llio matter clear when it could be done so easily; and be replied, with Sir James Graham, that he recognised it as a cardinal rule that one colleague should not run about making explanations and references to his colleagues. (Applause). ,He went on to explain the difference which arose through the escape of Qasparini. The French Consul, he said, had two friends who advised him, in communicating with his Government, to “ put it on to Fisher.’’ Well, he did‘‘put it on to Fisher.” He applied to the Government for a report from Inspector Thomson as to what took placo at the wharf when Gasparini left—who spoke to him.what was in a brown paper parcel he carried, and so on. The brown paper parcel, he might say, contained a clean shirt. (Laughter) Now he (Mr Fisher) was with the French Consul on the wharf, and they parted the best friends. This letter went to the Minister of Defence, who was his friend—his ebum, he might say, and he said nothing at all about it. He only just had an opportunity of catching that gentleman at the Bluff and saying to him, “ What didn’t you tell me that for the past month the French Consul has been playing detective on me ? ’ He replied, “ I thought you knew." Ho closed his_ heart against that man from that day. “ Fair and false as the Douglas.” The duplicity of the man was inconceivable, having regard to what he (Mr Fisher) did toward keeping him in tbo Cabinet in its earlier stages. Going on to the beer duty Mr Fisher said there was a man named Jackman (“ a bloodhound ” Mr Fisher called him) who reported to the Government that “during the last ten months while in the performance of his duties,he had become aware of circumstances, amounting to a strong case or fraud against the Comm snoner of Customs, Mr George Fisher, who had been obstructing the beer duty prosecutions against the Junction Brewery Company and Mr Gilmer.” He had been slandered all over the colony ini connection with these prosecutions. He would tell them something, but in the exercise of ordinary discretion he would only tell much as ho thought ho ought to, for he had to go before the High Court of Parliament. When he came back' from Australia he discovered that certain prosecutions had been ordered against brewers, and he found that these pr-seditions were not general. One largo brewer fwho was deficient on 73 hogsheads of beer, woa not touched, but was allowed to pay up his duty. This man was not touched, but another was prosecuted with a vengeance and rigour he almost hesitated to describe. In j another case, a brewer, who was deficient was allowed to pay up. His contention was, that all should be treated alike. He did not care whether all were prosecuted, or whether all allowed to pay the deficient duty, so long as all were treated the same. Ho denied emphatically that he allowed tha deficient duty to be paid up. He reminded his hearers that two celebrated brewery businesses had recently been amalgamated, and said that if this other brewery (the owner of which was prosecuted) could have boon “ wiped off the face of the earth” there would have been but one brewery monopoly ,for the city of Wellington.