The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1910. "E. A. SMITH" AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 768, 17 March 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1910. "E. A. SMITH" AGAIN.

In another column we print a further contribution to the interesting controversy respecting the firm of E. A. Smith, the shipping agents who, housed in the same building as the High Commissioner, have for a good many years enjoyed a monopoly of' the business of booking assisted emigrants to New Zealand, and a monopoly. also of the shipping of the stores imported by the Government. It will be remembered that we gave a good deal of space last January to the mystery of the Government's relations with "E. A. Smith.". The Prime Minister, after we had called attention to the matter, declared that there was no 'mystery at all; but he forgot that when a member of .the, Legislative Council attempted in 1908 to obtain some information as to the commission allowed in . connection with E. A Smith's shipping transactions his colleague, the Attorney-General, displayed a remarkable keenness in resisting the turning of any light upon thiß matter, on the ridiculous plea that to furnish the. information would cost too much in time and money.: Tho main objections to the arrangement between the High Commissioner's office and the Smith firm were: (1) That it was most undesirable that anjt single firm should have a monopoly of the ship, ping arrangements made by the High Commissioner, inasmuch as this must naturally discourage other shipping agents from taking any interest in assisting emigration to New Zealand; (2) that the business passed on to "E. A. Smith" was business that the High Commissioner's office .should have done for itself, since it was improper that the country should be deprived of the thousands of pounds which were paid yearly to "Smith" in commissions by the shipping companies and which, if the High Commissioner's office did its work, would have oome into the country's pockets.

The Prime 'Minister's reply was everywhere regarded as thoroughly unsatisfactory. He admitted some of the facts, but other facts he sought to evade in'a most uncandid manner. He said, for example, that "no commission or payment of any kind has been made by the High Commissioner's office on behalf of the Government to either 'E. A. Smith' or any other firm connectedwith the shipping of goods or passengers. to New Zealand." This is literally true,i but it is entirely misleading, and no refutation at all of* the main charge. For it is the shipping companies that pay the commission, in any case. The-point is that the High Commissioner ought to have obtained these payments. Instead, they were passed on to "E. A. Smith" ; and this in effect clearly amounts to the giving away of thousands of pounds to a private firm. So far as Mr. Kennaway is .concerned, we have no complaint to make.' His object, a quite laudable one, was to make money at his business. At the most we shall only say that he was indiscreet in so running his business that most of the emigrants appear to have imagined that they were doing business with one of the High Commissioner's officials. The country's interests, however, have nothing- to do with him any more' than with any other firm in London, and it would be wrong to blame him in any way for making good use of- his very favourable circumstances. : What is blameworthy, however, is the action of the Government in allowing this arrangement to exist.

The part which the Prime Minister has played in connection with the matter is made clear in our news article,, and wo are sure that he will realise that the public'will not be unreasonable in desiring an explanation of the contradiction between his statement and those of Mr. W: P. Reeves, Mr. E. M. Kennaway, and Sir Walter Kennaway. "Personally," said the Prime , Minister, in replying to our article of January 21 last, "I know nothing o£ the firm or its origin.

. . . I, for one, did not know, nor did any other member of the Government know, that Mr. Kennaway, jun., had been recently the principal of the firm of E. A. Smith." Now we find Mr. W. P. Ef.eves saying that in a letter which he wrote to the Government in 1906 he "went, (hit of his way to explain to them what Mr. ; Kennaavay was doing, and his connection with the office": "If a Minister camc Home we always made it a point of send-

ing Me. Kennavay to meet him. I am sure that it is on record in the Government Departments, and has been for some time, that young Kennaway was doing the work, and that he had become, in fact, the firm of E. A. Smith." In the face of this statement it is impossible to believe otherwise than that .the Prime Minister has either suffered a remarkable lapse of memory or been endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the New Zealand public. Sie Joseph Ward cannot blame the public if this affair fills it with uneasiness and a general distrust of the Ministry's words and actions. "How many other questionable dealings," the public will ask itself, "would be revealed if wo could break through the cordon of secrecy and suppression that has been perfected by nearly twenty years of control by the same little 'Liberal'' coterie?"