The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1891. A TORY CALUMNY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIII, Issue 2506, 6 November 1891, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1891. A TORY CALUMNY.

Sii?ce Mr W. L. Rees was appointed to the Chairmanship of Committee much has been made of a payment to him, some years ago, of a sum of £300, for service? which it is alleged he never performed. The Conservative organs with that tine talent for throwing mud that distinguishes most of them, have made the transaction the excuse for hurling abuse at Liberals m general and Mr Rees m particular. Mr Reey bsingin Hawke's Bay recently on Land Court business was asked and consented to address a public meeting m Napier, whereupon the " Hawke's Bay Herald " challenged him to refute the imputation resting upon him, which, be it noted; was contained m a letter addressed by Sir William Fox to the " New Zealand Herald." Mr Bees m his speech said that, he would answer Sir William Fox's assertions direct, and he has accordingly published his reply m the columns <rf the same paper m which the assertions were made. Mr Rees writes :-r- ---" When the Commission for the West Coast was 'promised by Sir George Grey, I was spoken to by aieveral Native chiefs with a view to acting for their people m a matter of very grave importance to them all. I consented to act, but stated that the preparations for the case would be extremely tedious and long, and that I should have to proceed to the AVest Coast when the Commission sat. Under these circumstancfli*, J toM-Hone Nahe, who was one of the chiefs interested, and the member for the district, that I should require a fee of £300 m advance. The Government having promised a Commission, and the natives having little or no money, it was the duty of the Government, if they desired that the natives should have fair play, to provide them with sufficient money to ff jwfejs them to employ legal assistance,

Hone .Nahe. applied to and received} from the Ministry the sum of £300 for this purpose. He could then have employed whom he chose. He did employ Messrs Sievwright and Stout, and paid the money to them. Mr Sievwright could Mso have employed any lawyer other than myself if he so pleased. I told Mr Sievwright that before I would undertake the very heavy task involved I must receive the money mentioned. Upon receipt of the fee of £300 I at once commenced the necessary preparations for the work. What that work was may be judgedfrom the fact that it took, as Sir William Fox says, l nearly live years to accomplish,' Afc any rate, a good twelve months' work was actually givon." Twelve memths' worlf of a leading colonial barrister ia, everybody will admit, a substantial return for a fee of three hundred pounds. However, on I the resignation.of Sir George Grey and | the accession to office of Sir John Hall, the latter brought the matter of this payment before Parliament, and got it referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Upon this Committee the new Government had a decided majority. The enquiry was conducted with closed doors; Mr Rees was not present nor represented by counsel, serious though the charge against him was; his evidence was taken, and he was then dismissed fram the Committee room. The Auditor-General—a gentleman whom Mr Bees' persecutors delighted to honor—could not be got to admit that the money had been improperly, paid, and it could not be proved that there had been any breach of any law or custom. The vote was accordingly passed, and any one not knowing the paltry methods of vindictiveness which are pursued by the Conservative press would have thought the matter would have then ended. Mr Rees goes oh to enumerate many other onerous services! | which he rendered to the natives on this retaining fee, including the preparation of $he defence of Te "Whitij Tohu, Titokawaru and others when they were arrested and thrown into gaol at Wellington, and giving other advice and assistance to the West Coast Natives for many year3 —always without fee or reward. Sir John Hall's attack upon Mr Rees was aimed also at discrediting Sir George Grey, Mr Sheehan, and Messrs Sievwright and Stout; it failed, and Sir William Fox's renewal of the attack upon Mr Rees, inspired only by malice and uncharitableness, and supported by misrepresentation, will also fail, and any obloquy which it may have caused will recoil upon the assailant.