The Wanganui Chronicle, AND Patea – Rangitikei Advertiser "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA " WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1899 POLITICAL JOBBERY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIII, Issue 15000, 1 February 1899, Page 2

The Wanganui Chronicle, AND Patea - Rangitikei Advertiser "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA " WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1899 POLITICAL JOBBERY.

A f„\v days ago we gave, from a Parlia- ' meii.tary return just issued, the cost to the country of tlie Police Commission. A striking feulure'ui the cost was the large amount drawn by the Commissioners themselves. The figures given showed tha,t the Chairman of the Commission made a fine fat job of it. It now appears that a portion of the payments made to Mr. War dell were illegal, and directly contrary/ to the provisions of the statute by virtue of which lie draws a pension from the country. The only explanation of the deliberate infringement of the law, for which the Premier is responsible, is that Mr. Wardell is known to be a gentleman of the " right colour." We pointed out iu our former article the several sums received by Mr. Wardell. First, he received £535 10s for 170 days, at £3 3s a day, and next £171 7s 7d, being the amount' paid to him in lieu of pension from tlie 9th February to the 28th July, 1898, " which could not legally be charged to Pensions Vote." The remainder of the payments to the same gentleman aggregated £24 18s 2d, for coach fares. , Altogether Mr. Wardell received £731 15s 9d. Mr. Wardell, be it remembered,, was at the time holding no oflice iu the service of the colony. Mr. Pitt, who was similarly circumstanced, re- ' ceived, in addition to his travelling expenses, £535 10s, exactly the same amount, calculated at three guineas a day, as was received by Mr.- Wardell for his 170 days' work. But Mr. Wardell received a special sum of £171 7s 7d, which the return explains could not legally be charged to the Pensions Vote. How, then, did he- come to get it, by what authority was it paid, and to what, vote was it charged ': The Timaru Herald' answers the question in an article, which is well worthy of reproduction. We quote from it as follows: — "The answer discloses a nice little bit of jobbery and illegality perpetrated by the Government" (we may as well say, the Premier) iu favour of an ex-oflicial of the right colour. Mr. Wardell was for many years a Resident Magistrate, and retired on a pension of £375, which, we have no doubt, he had well earned, and to which he was legally entitled. He is,/ of course, - in the enjoyment of that pension still, i and was so when he accepted a seat on the ■ Police Commission. So far everything is plain and straightforward; but Sec-on 6, of the Pensions Act, 1884, is as follows: — 'In case any person enjoying auy superannuation or retiring allowance shall be • appointed lo till any office in any public department, or shall iu any- other way be"come tho recipient of money paid out of the colonial revenue by way of salary or 1 allowance, every such first-mentioned superannuation or retiring allowance shall cease to be paid for any period subsequent j . to such appointment during the" tjroe that ■ he holds the same" if the annual amount ( of the profits of the oflice or other ap poinlment or emolument to which he has I become entitled shall be equal to those of the oflice formerly held by him ; and, in case they shall not be equal to those of his former offico, then no more of such superannuation allowance shall be. paid to him than what, with the salary of his new appointment or other emolument, shall be equal to. that of his former oflice.' This section applied to Mr. Wardell's case^ when he accepted the position of Commissioner. He became ' the recipient oi money paid out of the colonial revenue by way of salary or allowance,' and the sums so received had to be deducted from his pension. The return shows that they were so deducted. It states that the £171 7$ 7d ' could not legally be charged to Pensions y<,it v e.' Hut the words which we hifve last quoted are open to objection, because they inay be taken to imply that though the money could not lie charged tti the Pensions Vote, it might legally be charged to somo other vote. But obviously it is not so, a fact which any intelligent person will recognise who carefully reads Section 6of the Pensions Act. The £jL7I 7s 7d, though not paid 'out of the Pensions Vote, wjis paid ,out of the colonial revenue, and went inly Mr. Wardell's ptfeket. Jn ('thei' words, Jic received tjhe full amount of his pciisum jybilsjt fie acted as Commissioner, and received <(,lw) (.he full . amount of his p.iy as Commissioner. The Government (the Premier) was therefore guilty of a flagrant breach of the law. He set aside a distinct statutory provision, made expressly to meet such a case as Mr. Wai'dell'is ; and he had not even the poor excuse that without the £171 7s 7d Mr. Wardell's remuneration would huv« been inadequate for the services which he had performed. When Mr. Wardell Wits a Resident Magistrate his salary was £500 a year," or perhaps a little more, but as Commissioner (independently of the iljegiil '£171 7s 7d) he received for 170 days' woi;k as much as' he would have received' f,or 365 days' work when he was a member uf the /Jbvl Service. At the rate at Ssu ■-' i'. '• • . ; j, which he was paid 0 f-h.e he would have earned in a year J&l^ 49 15s, which is probably a much larger gubuy than he ever received in his life. He wouhi fwl.ii'ly not have been reduced to starvation point if J v iad had to put up with the same amount as was j.nid to his brother Commissioner. This Ward— 1 Incident is v- Jit'e. illustration of the ,kind of things that are done under the yoke of Seddonism,"

Tin-; Napier Telegraph is a veritable compendium ol general knowledge, but its, editor makes some mistakes, even in little matters very, near home. For instance, Saturday's Telegraph describes Mr. Bollard, the member for Eden, Auckland, as a "Seddonian member of the House," and remarks that his scheme for providing —irking men's homes on the Kaipara railway line "stamps him as a political charlatan." Poor Mr. Bollard ! Why, there is no member of the House of Representatives, who has a greater distaste for Seddonism and dislike lo Mr Seddon himself than has Mr Bollard. It is, indeed, a source of displeasure to the burly member for Eden that he is. sometimes mistaken for the Premier, and nothing annoys him more than for anybody to point out to him the points of physical resemblance between himself and (.he Premier. We hope the Telegraph will at once relieve Mr Bollard from the stigma it has cast upon him. He may have to be content w ith being stamped by"our contemporary as "a political charlatan," but he will be deeply hurt, if indeed he is not perfectly ropeable, at being decribed as "a Seddonian member of the House." «m«_— _—_—■_«— W