POLITICAL NOTES.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 489, 5 August 1890, Page 3

POLITICAL NOTES.

[STANDARD SPECIAL CORBEerONDENT.] Wellington, Saturday. There is really nothing worth chronicling down here, the session being a most barren one so far. The chances of your Harbor Bill are to an extent improved, and in the hands of a representative who had the tact to push matters in the desired direction I believe the Bill would have a good chance of getting through. As things are I need offer no opinion. The Waiapu Separation Bill is being cleverly piloted through, in striking contrast to your Harbor Bill, and if immediate opposition is not made against the Separation Bill it has good hopes of success. The Hutchison charges are monopolising a lot of time and causing bitterness of feeling, with little hope of a satisfactory outcome. During the discussion in the House, prior to the party division which went in favor of the Bank. Mr Hutchison said be thought the time had come for him to break the silence which he had imposed upon himself so ong. He denied emphatically that he bad been a party to any obstruction, and said that witbin ten minutes of being summoned he handed in his written charges. What had been done since ’ He had never been allowed to begin to open his case. Three weeks had gone by, and the issues had not been decided. He resented the ” misrepresentations” of Mr Stewart, and said that though he had, at an earlier period, sat at the feet of that gentleman, he should be sorry to follow his lead in such a course as he had taken that night. Having reviewed the history of the proceedings, Mr Hutchinson taunted the Government with now actually whipping to censure its own Committee. (Opposition cheers.) Let not the Government say this was not a party question, for the whip had been made. He referred to the speeches of Mr Bryce and Mr Macarthur, and called the House to witness the temper of the men who were to be his judges. Aa to Mr Macarthur, tbat gentleman was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, some of whose transactions were brought in question in the charges. As to Sir John Hall's suggestion that the desired information should be obtained through the Treasury, he said one of the points he desired to establish was that the Treasury accounts were not to be relied on. However, as the Government were going to use their majority to close the matter, he should do what be had desired to do before the Committee, namely, open his case. He assured the House that he would have no difficulty in the Supreme Court in getting an order for inspection and copies of Bank documents under section 7 of the Banks and Bankers Act 1887. Referring to the Dargaville inquiry he pointed out that Mr Dargaville simply opened his case and then called expressed an opinion that Mr Stewart would rather have spoken on the other side, but argued “ witb ihe newborn zeal of an apostolate.” If the Committee had allowed him (Mr Hutchison) to proceed, he would have proved that between the date of the present Government going into office and the 31st of March following, there was set nr an extraordinary state of finance, which he had described as “ abnormal ” ;that the agreement between the Bank and the Government was not enforced in many particulars where it would have been beneficial to the Colony; tbat Ihe Bank was relieved from a responsibility to lend certain sums of money every month; and tbat the Treasurer went about to financial and charitable institutions of tbe colony ” begging and borrowing money which went to help the Bank,” and tbat members of the Ministry were under heavy obligations to the Bank, As to Sir Frederick Whitaker, he believed that in the first instance he was not personally responsible, but the obligation was there, and favours were shown to him inconsistent with any other supposition than the Bank got considerable advantages from the public funds. Then as to Sir Harry Atkinson, he could quite understand the counsel for the Bank being so persistent on the subject of guarantees. He contended that really Mr Bell was the advocate for the Ministers who were concerned in the matter. He (Mr Hutchison) would have claimed to show the Committee that Sir Harry Atkinson Iwas under a very heavy obligation to the Beak for another person, and that that

obligation was out of all measure with his ability to pay; that it had never been met—probably had never been considered an asset of the Bank. And did anyone mean to tell him tbat the Bank, which was not supposed to carry on its business for sentiment, but had to pay dividends totits shareholders would act in that way without consideration ? Or that any Court wculd refuse to hear evidence in such circumstances ? They would have proved Mr Mitchelson to have been under very heavy' obligations, though he might not be so now. But the fact that the fobligations had been discharged in a manner which was inconsistent with payment in full would mean that the Minister was put in a position of servitude to the Bank. Was there any doubt about his charges now? (Opposition cbejrsJ He warned the Government that they must take the responsibility of the charges being left uninvestigated. He was desirous of going on, with the onus on him of proving what he alleged, subject to the Committee’s regulation whether the evidence he adduced was relevant at that stage or not. (Cheers.)