THE DARGAVILLE CHARGES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1040, 5 September 1883, Page 2

THE DARGAVILLE CHARGES.

The Dargaville Committee’s report is as follows : —The Committee have the honor to report that they verified the report of Mr Dargavilla’s speech by examining the Mansard reporters, who read their shorthand notes taken at the time, and found the proof report as submitted to the Committee as substantially correct. The Committee having considered that report extracted certain passages,] which will be in detail in the minutes of evidence, and passed the following resolution —“ lhat the Committee is of opinion that the speech, of Mr Dargaville on the 31st July, 1883, does impute political corruption against the Premier and Treasurer, and that it also imputes personal dishonor to the Premier.” Mr Dargaville was informed of the above resolution, and made the following statement “ I did not intend to convey any personal imputation of dishonesty against the Premier and the Treasurer, and I only regret that the Committee consider the words could bear such an interpretation.” And in his evidence on the 23rd August he further aa id “I did not charge those two gentlemen with personal dishonor or dishonesty. Mr Dargaville having been requested to formulate charges in precise terms, handed the following:—“ That the Government lent a sum of L 225.000 of trust funds over which the Treasurer has control to the Bank of New Zealand without security for a term of years in a manner not contemplated by the law, by giving undue advantages to one banking establishment closely allied with the present administration. Further, that Parliament has not yet been informed of the transaction. Mr 0. G. Knight, Actuary of the Insunnce Department, Mr Foster Goring, Clerk of the Executive Council, and Mr Luckie, Insurance Commissioner, were called and examined as witnesses by Mr Dargaville, and he and the Treasurer made a sta oment. Mr Dargaville having been asked whether the charge already made was the

only one to be brought forward, replied that he would rest his accusation of political corruption upon that charge. The Treasurer then called Mr Luokie, and also examined by Mr Gavin, Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr Gray, Secretary to the Post Office. The Premier and the Colonial Treasurer offered themselves for examination by the Committee or by Mr Dargaville, but neither the Committee nor Mr Dargaville thought it necessary to examine them. The transaction upon which the charge of political corruption ■was based was fully investigated by the Committee. The facts are as follows: Some difficulty seems to have been experienced by those having the control and management of certain so-called trust funds in finding suitable investments for them, and in 1878 the then PostmasterGeneral first commenced the system of making fixed deposits at interest of the surplus P. O. funds in the Bank of New Zealand, and Mr Knight, Acting Insurance Commissioner, shortly afterwards adopted the same course, sanctioned by a minute of the then Colonial Treasurer. This has since become the practice with these and other Government Departments when s litable investments were not otherwise available, und has continued to the present time. In March, 1879, the total amount of these fixed deposits had reached L 262,000. On the 16th of March, 1883, there was L 225,000 on deposit for two years, bearing 6 per cant, interest for first year, and per cent, for the second year. This formed the subject of the charge against the Treasurer. The appended documents show that, except as investments as defined in the Act, the Insurance Commissioner is, in the opinion of the Solicitor-Genefal, by law independent ; of the Treasurer. It is further shown that ( he keeps a separate banking account, and operates on that account subject to the control of the Controller-General. The j deposit of L 225.000 was made by cheques signed by the Commissioner, and countersigned by the Controller-General. The Treasurer appears to have been consulted I by Mr Luckie as to whether there were any I Treasury bil's ' available for purchase. There being none the deposit was made with the Bank with the consent of the I Treasurer, although such consent was not | considered necessary to enable the transactions to be carried out. No proof was offered in reference to the transaction of 1867, nor any other special charge made. But it appears that the accusations which occupy the speech with regard to the Public Debts and Consolidated Loans Act, must have been made under some misapprehension, as the Premier was not a member of the Government nor the General Assembly at the time these Acts were passed ; and although the Treasurer was a member of the House of Representatives, he was not a member of the Ministry, and voted against the Acts referred to. The Committee, therefore, find that Mr Dargaville, having disavowed any intention to impute personal dishonor or dishonesty to the Premier and to the Colonial Treasurer, any such charge contained or deducible from this speech is wholly withdrawn. That Mr Dargaville adhered to the charge of corruption, and has ca’led evidence in support of the same, resting his case upon one particular transaction. That the evidence with regard to that transaction wholly fails to substantiate that charge, and the allega tion of political corruption based upon it is therefore entirely unfounded.—For the Committee, Thomas Mason, Chair- ' man. n _________