Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1885. Sir Julius Vogel’s Claim.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1744, 9 October 1885, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1885. Sir Julius Vogel’s Claim.

It will be remembered that daring the last session of Parliament Sir Julius Vogel claimed a commission on the floating of the five million loan, or failing that, a commission on the conversion of stock ; also compensation for being deprived of the agency for inscribed stock. Sir Julius addressed Parliament by on the subject, and asked that a sum of £6250 should be awarded to him in satisfaction of the claims in question. The matter was ref, rrerl to the Public Petitions Committee, and that body, after taking a mass of evidence, reported that the subject required further investigation before they could give their decision upon it. The evidence taken by the committee has recently been printed, and it now appears that the claim of Sir Julius Vogel is strongly supported by Sir William Fitzherbert, who, during his examination before the committee, was not content to merely answer questions, but contrived to make a series of little speeches to the effect that the claim in question was a just and righteous one which ought to bo recognised and paid. The contention of Sir William Fitzherbert is, however, no better than an ingenious pi mo of special pleading. Sir Julius Vogel, at the time he aided in the negotiation of the five million loan, was the paid servant of the colony as Agent-Gene-ral, and was receiving a salary of £ISOO a year. In this position, he was bound to render all the service to the colony he could, in the negotiation of the loan, and such service was fully paid for by his salary as AgentGeneral ; but Sir William Fitzherbert puts the matter in another light. He staled before the Parliamentary Committee “ Sir Julius Vocpl had received as Agent General notice to quit. He could not therefore after that he regarded as holding the office of Agent-General permanently, which was incompatible with the receipt of a mission for the negotiation of the loan. Virtually he was functus officio ; he was no longer Agent-General—he was merely holding office as anyone else holds office to perform in a perfunctory manner certain routine duties. lie could not be considered as the permanent Agent-General of the Colony, and might any day have been, and could not have complained, if he had been peremptorily removed,”

This contention is all nonsense. Because an oilier in the public service has received r. six montus’ notice of dismissal, it by no means follows that le is not to perform all the duties of bis position during that six months. A part of Sir Julius Vogel’s^duties was to give his aid in negotiating the loan. He did give that aid and was paid for his work by his salary as Agent General. Sir Julius cannot either in law or equity, claim to be paid tivice over for those services—fiivfc, by salary, and second, by commission. With respect to this claim Sir Julius Vogel hasn’t a leg left to stand upon. Then with regard to the other claim made by Sir Julius Vogel— that for compensation on account of bis appointment as loan agent being cancelled—it has to bo said that ho

never definitely received the appointment rn question. The Ministry then in office found on looking into the whole question that three loan agents were not required, and that the work could be done perfectly well by two agents. The appointment of loan agent, in the case of Sir Julius Vogel, was not therefore confirmed. In this case, also, Sir Julius Vogel has no just claim against the colony for compensation. We can readily understand how Sir William Fitzherbert so strongly supports the claims of Sir Julius Vogel for the £6250 for compensation. Both those astute old stagers have been perfect blood suckers in their time, with respect to wringing large sums of money out of the public purse at the expense of the taxpayers of tins colony. From first to last. Sir Julius Vogel has had some £30,000 of public money which certainly was ample payment for whatever so-called services he claims to have rendered to the colony. Sir William Fitzherhert has also made some rich hauls of the same kind. When Sir William a good few years back went to London on a mission connected with the loans of the colony he obtained on his return a most munificent money reward for his services. Besides this, Sir William has been in receipt of large emoluments from tbepublic chestduring nearly the whole period of his residence in the colony, extending over forty years. It would simply astound people if they knew how large a sum of public money Sir William has received for his own benefit during those forty ye irs. Doubtless, Sir William is an able man and has“ done the State some service.” But he has been very well paid indeed for all those services—not taking into account the special rich haul he made out of bis loan mission to London a good few years back. We can quite understand why Sir William backs up the present claim of Sir Julius. “ A fellow feeling makes one wondrous kind.” Sir William has tasted of the sweets of pocketing a large sum of public money, as a bonus for his work in connection with loan negotiations, and he desires that Sir Julius should be enabled to do the same. It is not however likely that either the Parliament or people of ibis colony will ever consent to recognise the utterly unjustifiable claim, now made by Sir Julius Vogel for this £6250 of compensation, and all the special pleading of Sir William on hisbehalf will therefore have been made in vain.