9

H.—22

Customs, were all anxious that the case should proceed; but, although the Crown Solicitor had told you that in his opinion the Junction Brewery cases were the worst of the three cases then before you, and must be prosecuted, you failed or neglected to take any action. On the 23rd February, Hamilton having been convicted, you informed Mr. Glasgow, the Acting Secretary of Customs, by minute, in reply to a written request by him to be allowed to proceed with the Junction Brewery prosecutions, that there was no need of precipitancy in the matter—that was within ten days of the time in which it would be possible to lay informations in the two clearest cases. Although subsequently warned by Mr. Glasgow that the time for laying the informations would expire on the 4th March, and requested by him to permit the prosecution to go on, you did nothing till Monday, the 4th March, which now appears to have been the last day on which the informations could have been laid on the two clear offences mentioned above. On that day, at 11.30 a.m., you handed Mr. Glasgow a letter from Mr. Gilmer, submitting himself to any fine you might impose, if only the case was not taken into Court. Armed with Mr. Gilmer's letter, you called a meeting of the Cabinet, on Monday, the 4th March, at 2.30 p.m.; and after a very full discussion with all the facts before it, and after an examination of Mr. Glasgow, the Cabinet came to the conclusion that the prosecution must be instituted. You telegraphed to me on the same day, asking my assent to your settling the case out of Court. I replied that the information should be laid and that upon my return the Cabinet could consider if the case should go on or be compromised. I am informed that at this meeting of the Cabinet you led it to believe that the last day for laying the information was the sfch March, and not the 4th, and you telegraphed to the same effect to me. It now appears that the 4th March was the last day upon which the information upon the two clearest cases against the brewery could be laid ; and in the paragraphs now under reply you make it appear that the Cabinet knew that the 4th March was the last day for laying the information, and that it delayed so long in discussing the matter that you found, after the Cabinet rose, that it was impossible to lay the information, as the Resident Magistrate's Court was closed. Ido not remark on the fact of wrong information being conveyed to the. Cabinet and myself: possibly you were unaware at the time that the 4th March was the last day ; but assuming this to be so, it is, to say the least, disingenuous that you should now pretend it was the Cabinet's delay that caused you not to lay the information. The excuse about the Eesident Magistrate's office being closed is of the most flimsy description. Had you really desired the information should have been laid there would have been no difficulty whatever. A note to the Crown Solicitor after the rising of the Cabinet, or a telephonic message to his office, would have insured the information being laid that afternoon, and it could have been taken before any Justice of the Peace at any time. But I may ask how it was that, if you really desired to give effect to the views of the Cabinet, you did not warn the Cabinet of the shortness of the time at its disposal, and that you had not all the papers ready for any action that the Cabinet might decide was necessary. After the meeting of the Cabinet on the 4th March, at which it was decided the prosecution was to be instituted, Mr. Glasgow, in your room and presence, wrote a recommendation upon Mr. Gilmer's letter to the effect that, as there was always a possibility of the Government being defeated on a technical point of law, a fine of £200, including unpaid duty, should be imposed upon Mr. Gilmer; but this recommendation was made without the knowledge that the Cabinet had ordered the prosecutation of the Junction Brewery. On the day following that upon which this recommendation of Mr. Glasgow's was made —that is, on the sth March—you appended a minute to his recommendation to the effect that it was too severe, and that you thought a penalty of £50 in addition to any unpaid duty, or a total of £150, would meet the justice of the case. Both Mr. Glasgow's recommendation and your minute were written after the Cabinet had decided that the Junction Brewery was to be prosecuted. This fact was, of course, known to you, but unknown to Mr. Glasgow. On the same evening you telegraphed to me at Wanganui that Hamilton's case had resulted in the infliction of a fine of £100. This was not a fact, as I will show directly, but you wired it as an argument to induce me to allow you to settle Gilmer's case out of Court. In another telegram on the sth March, referring to Gilmer's cases, you say : " Glas- " gow, in report of Hamilton's case, says £100 is highest penalty that can be imposed. Should " be glad if you could see your way to agree to impose this highest penalty without going "to Court. Penalty in addition to deficient duty, of course. I think that would be quite " exemplary. Kindly answer before leaving." This telegram was also very inaccurate and misleading. Mr. Glasgow had qualified his recommendation in Hamilton's case with the words, "If my " view is correct, I would recommend," &c. That there was great doubt, to say the least, of the correctness of this view is evident from the fact that Hamilton had been fined £250 and had not appealed, and that he had actually paid £200 into Court with your approval in satisfaction of the fine and forfeiture inflicted by the Magistrate. But even had Mr. Glasgow been right on this point, your telegram would have been highly misleading, because Hamilton was convicted of one class of offence—that of non-stamping—whereas the Junction Brewery was charged with two classes of offences—viz., failing to enter materials for making beer, as well as for not stamping beer before delivered ; so that the maximum penalty in this case, even if Mr. Glasgow's view was correct, was £200, not £100 as you informed me. I might not unreasonably have expected that in such a telegram as the one just quoted you would have given me absolutely correct information, and that, when asking me to allow you to settle the matter without going into Court, you would have informed me that Cabinet, after full discussion, had, on the previous day, decided that the case was one that should be prosecuted. Your remembrance of what transpired between you and Mr. Fergus is not accurate. Mr. Fergus was in his office all the morning of Monday, the 4th March, and could have attended Cabinet. He saw you shortly before one o'clock on that day, on the question of the appointment of a Justice of the Peace, and told you that he could not attend a 2—H. 22.