MR GEORGE FISHER'S EXPLANATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4560, 8 June 1889, Page 4

MR GEORGE FISHER'S EXPLANATION.

» At Die commencement of bis address to his cunstituteota of Wellington East last Monday evening, Mr Geo. Fisher tried to " put himself right " with them regarding the quarrel* which hcd reeulted m hia retirement from the Cabinet. He began by quoting Napoleon's remark that all great battles were lost and won through some small incident — and he would show his audience how a Minister of the Cruwn might lose hia position through a small beer incident. For the last year he had lain under the imputation that he had intrigued against his crjlleague Mr llitohelson. The time had now come when the imputation should be cleared away ; he 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 v Cabinet meeting, at which four persons I were present. He himself had stated that ho voted m favour of the request. Nothing more. The next thing h» heard however, was that "Mr Mitchelson had resigned because he would not permit Mr Fisher's interference," hut .t'no resignation was afterwards withdrawn. As a „ Wellington representative he was asked lut-r on to put a question on the Order Puper, anil k this ho declined to do, being a Minister, but took it into the House, saji rig he would give it to the first member ho met — who was Mr Cad man. Mr Cadman agreed to utlc the question (which referred to the Government Printing Office contract, an to whether an extension of time had been granted, whethir penalties had been enforced and so on). Ho put it to them tlmt that could not be conetrued into an «t tack on 2 colleague. If the question was aimed at any one at all it. wan aimed at the previous Government. Uo hud explained that to a man m a high positi <rj m Auckland, who asked birn -why he had not made tho matter clear whim i> could bo don;so easily; and he replied, with Sir Jumr.V Graham, that he recognised it as a cardinal rule that one collenguo should not run about making explanations and references to hi* colleagues. (Applause) He went on to explain tho difference which aroae through the escape of Gaspanni. The French Consul, he said, had two friends who advised him, m o-Timunicuting with his Government, t> " pn' it on to Fisher " Well, ho did " put il on to Fisher." He applied to th« Government for a reDOrt from Inspector Thomson as to what took pls.ee at the wharf •when Gasparini left-who spoko to him.wliat wai m a brown paper parcel he carried, and noon. Tho brown paper parrwl, hn might say, contained a clean shirt. (Laughter ) Now he (Mr Fisher) wj« with th« Krencli Consul on the wharf, and tlioy parted tho best friondn. Thi» letter went to tho Minister of IVf'-nce, who was lii« frimid iiu feliuin, In; .might say, and he (aid nothing at all about it. He only just had an opportunity of catching that gentleman at the BluS and saying tv

him, " What didn't you tell me that for the past month the French Consul has been playing dotective on me ?" He replied, " I thought you knew." He closed his heart nguinst that man from that day. " Fair and false B 3 tho Douglas." Tho duplicity of the man was inconceivable, having regard to what he (Mr Fisher) did toward keeping him m the Cabinet m its earlier stages. Going on to the beer duty Mr Fisher (aid there was a man named Jackman (" a bloodhound" Mr Fisher called him) who reported to the Government that "during the last ton months while m the performance of his duties,be had become aware of circumstances, amounting to a strong case or fraud against the Commissioner of Customs, Mr George Fisher, who had been obstructing tho beer duty prosecutions against the Junc'.ion Browery Company and Mr Gilmer." fTe had been slandered" all over the colony m connection with these prosocutions. He would tell them something, but m tho exercise of ordinary discretion he would only tell much as he thought he 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 ag&inst brewers, and he found that these prosecutions wore not general. Ono large brewer Iwho was doficient on 73 hogsheads of beer, wbs not touched, but waa 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 another case, a brewer, who was deficient was allowed to pay up. Hia contention was, that all should bo treated alike. Ho did not care whether all were prosecuted, or whether all wore allowed to pay the deficient duty, bo long as all were treated the same. He denied emphatically that he allowed the 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 browery (the owner of which was prosecuted) could have been " wiped off the face of the earth " there would have been but one brewery monopoly for the city of Wellington.