MR. DARGAVILLE'S CHARGES.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1286, 20 August 1883, Page 2

MR. DARGAVILLE'S CHARGES.

♦ — THE MINISTER OF LANDS IN REPLY. The Hon, Mr Eolleston said the House had listened to the hon. member for Auckland City East, with rapt attention, and whilst all must admit, that from his point of view, the evils that might arise had been ably put, still, as a matter of fact, there was no danger threatening the Colony from the monetary institutions, but on the contrary the principal monetary institution had stood by the Colony in adversity and prosperity. As regards titular distinctions and the patronage of promoting a policeman that was farfetched and in practice would be found a fallacy. The Premier of this Colony was not an autocrat, and never could be one so long as we had the present electoral system, and such an assertion was a reflection upon the hon. members of the House, for it implied that a majority of them were also under the influence of the monetary institutions of the Colony. The Minister for each department is alone responsible for appointments made and also for promotion, and should the Premier interfere no Minister who had a spark of independence in him would retain his seat in the Cabinet. In the present Cabinet there was a standing rule that all appointments over £200 per annum had to be recommended by the Minister in charge and agreed to by a mojority in the Cabinet, the Premier only having a vote like any other Minister. The judges of the Colony were a credit to us, and to say that any Premier could corrupt or control the judicial bench was fallacious. As regards the sheriffs, they do not appoint the grand juries, neither can they or do they influence the petty juries, Ihe administration of justice in New Zealand would compare favorably with any other part of the world. In all matters concerning the Colony, the otic great and preponderating idea in the mind of the member for Auckland City East was that some one person was to rise up and cure all the ills ; that the people were to be true to him alone. It would require many minds and many able men to properly govern this Colony. Autocracy in this country would not last forty eight hours. As regards the connection between the Premier and the Bank of New Zealand, he failed to see why exception should be. taken to it. The present agreement with the bank was well known to every member of the House, and that agreement was made before Mr Whitaker was made Premier, and the agreement so far worked advantageously, both to the Colony and the bank. It would be a sorry day for the Colony if all persons who became Ministers were to be disfranchised, simply because they were connected with some monetary institution, or company. The same argument, but in a lesser degree, might be applied to every member of the House. He hoped therefore that the proposal of the hon. member for Auckland City East would be rejected. Messrs. Bish, Bathgate, and Montgomery supported the motion, which, on a division, was lost ; ayes, 25 ; noes, 42. (From the New Zealand Times, August 4th). On one account, and on one account only, the Colony is indebted to Mr Dargaville for making in Parliament the apparently false and slanderous charges in which he has this week indulged with regard to the conduct and character of the Premier and the Colonial Treasurer. If one-half or one-tenth part of these charges could be proved true, without a doubt both -the Premier and the Colonial Treasurer ought to be expelled from Parliament. If, on the other hand, the charges are not substantiated by the clearest proofs, Mr Dargaville, as a palpable liar and slanderer, is not merely unfit to sit in Parliament, but also unfit for the soeiety of all honest men. What, then are the facts of the case by his own admission ? Will it be believed that Mr Whitaker was not in either House of Parliament in 1867, and that Major Atkinson left his own party to vote against the objectionable Bill? Yet Mr Dargaville admitted those assertions as true. It is quite true that at the time the Bank of New Zealand did ho d certain provincial debentures. They had a perfect right to do so. True, also, they tried to get the best price they could for them. They would have been idiots had they not done so in any way the law allowed, and Mr Dargaville, as an exbank manager, would certainly have done the best he could legally for his own employers under similar circumstances. It is true, also, that Mr Whitaker exerted himself on behalf of his clients, and was duly paid for it. But does Mr Dargaville mean to say that if he — Mr Dargaville — had been eagaged as counsel for even the Phoenix Park murderers, he would not have tripd to get them off scott free I from conviction ; or that he would not have acted as counsel, and been paid accordingly, in any case where any bank was trying to push a Bill through Parliament ?