The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1910. LETTING IN THE LIGHT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 867, 13 July 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1910. LETTING IN THE LIGHT.

The debate in the House of Representatives ■yesterday during .which the mystery which has shrouded the relations between the Government, the High Commissioner's office,, and the' firm of E. A. Smith was cleared away should serve sumo very useful purposes. It should enable the public first of all t6 form an- idea of the very loose manner in which the business affairs of the country are conducted; it should enlighten the public as to the ■ reckless fashion in which the Prime Minister of the country can on occasions commit himself to assertions which when placed beside official records are almost stupefying!}' incon-

sistent; and it should afford some idea' of- the enormous difficulties with which any member of Parliament or any member of the community is confronted when in search of information on any public matter controlled by the Ministry of the day, and which it is the right of the people to have placed before them. Sir Joseph Ward has endeavoured to make it uppear that some personal reflection has been cast on the late High Commissioner in connection with the E. A. Smith affair. Nothing of the kind was attempted. The objection that has been raised has been to what has had every appearance of being a. bad business arrangement on behalf of the Dominion; and- the mystery with Which that arrangement appears to have been shrouded has alone been responsible for the unpleasant turn which tho discussion of the matter has at times taken. No one but the Government is responsible for this, li; is not our purpose to follow yesterday's discussion as to tho merits of the arrangement with Messrs. h. A. Smith asp Co. The fact that the Government have at last decided to abandon that arrangement, and that a largo annual saving to the Dominion is anticipated as the result, is sufficient to show that the criticism which has been passed was fully warranted. What to most people will appear the most striking feature of the debate .is the strange ignorance displayed by the Prime Minister concerning a Department of such importance as the High Commissioner's office in London, and the business, dealings of that office in 6 a matter affecting this country's immigration policy. In his interview published in the press on January 22 Sir Joseph Ward made two statements concerning the firm of E. A. Smith which can only be excused on the grqund of ignorance of the matter he was discussing. The documents , which he laid on the table of the House yesterday in one case give a flat contradiction to his statement, and in the other ; it seems to us, at least afford evidence of very remarkable carelessness on his part. That the position may be clearly understood we print, in parallel columns below a statement made by the Prime Minister to the press, and published on January 22, .together with an extract from the report of Mr. C.Wray PalLISER, of the High Commissioner's office, and prepared at the request of the High Commissioner. Mr. Pal-user's report is the official story of the E. A. Smith firm's connection with the New Zealand Government. The extracts are as follow: —

Sir Joseph Ward. Me. Palliser's HeJanuary 31, 1910. PORT. The implied sug- London, March 16, gestion that the Gov- 19HI. 'eminent was paying Mr. E. it. Kennacommissions to this way [E. A. Smith particular lira lor anu Co.] was entiwork done in Eng- tied to' receive (in land was entirely common with all without foundation, other ' shipping No commissions ci- agents in the Unitpayments oi any ea Kingdom) cerkind' had been made tain sums as cpmby the High Com- mission and bonus inissioner's Office to on assisted passenolthcr E. A. Smith Sok dispatched to or any other firm r ew Zealand. , . .

with regard to. the Tho. bonus was the shipping of goods or su m paid to him passengers by tho and other agents by shipning companies ,110 Government ol to New Zealand. New Zealand. . . .

The ■ total amount of bonuses for assisted passengers paid to Mr. E. .A. Smith by this office Itho High commissioner's Office] during the year 19C6 amounted to £674 17s. 3d., of which Mr. Kennaway received, I understand, £473 17s. 3d. . . . During 1907 the total amount of bonuses paid by this office was £525 2s. . . . and during the year 1908 £814 16s. . . . During the year 1906 the shipping agency fees paid by this office to E. A. Smith amounted to £690 18s. lid., and during the years 1967 and 19C8 to £649 12s. 6d. and £554 Bs. 9d. respectively. The amount received from this office by B. A. Smith for bonuses and shipping freight fees during .the years 1906, 1907, and 1908 amounted ■ respectively to £1164 16s. 2d., £1052 14s. 6d., and £1169 3s. 9d.

How Sir' Joseph Ward could have made a statement so astonishingly incorrect is difficult to understand. If he 'was' merely speaking from memory when giving the interview to the press he was taking a very dangerous risk,' and the public were seriously misled. But for the persistence with which the matter has been pursued, tho statement then made would have gone unchallenged and would have stood to-day. as representing the facts of the position. Neither the press nor the public can bo blamed in the circumstances if in the future they place small reliance on the Prime Minister's memory..

The second statement in the. interview referred to which calls for comment was to the effect that neither he (tho Prime Minister) nor any member of the Government, was aware that Mr. Kennaway had become tho principal in the firm of E. A. Smth. This statement is very surprising, in view of the fact that a certain cablegram and a letter were sent from the High Commissioner's office in 19C6, which explained the whole business. We resort to the parallel, columns again to make the position clear:

Sie Joseph Wakd. Copies op CableJanuary 21, 1910. GBAMS

I may say here Prom Pjimo Ministhat 1, for one, did tcr to High Conimisnot, knew, nor did sioner, Wellington, any other member September 3, 1906. of the Government "ilavo you. authorknow, that Mr. Ken- ised E. A. Smith to nan-ay,' junr., had announce himself as been recently the shipping agent, Govprincipal of the ernrnent of NowZeaiinn of E. A. Smith. . land? Is he employed by your and is ho authorised arrange passages to navvies and others? "WAHD." The reply from the High Coimnis-sioncr, dated 4th September, 19C6-.-"In reply y.n:r *•>!■? mm i>t yesterday's date, E. A. Smith for many years authorised shipping agent for N.Z. .Government,, and t has been referred to as such in official, documents, and Edward Kennaway taking on business ia the name of E- A. Smith, emPloyed by me arrange reduced passages for porsons approved by mc.

It rmisfc be rdain ti anyone reading the cablegram sent by the Prime Minister and the reply received thereto: "Edward Kennaway taking on business in the name E. A. Smith employed by me, etc.," that information was conveyed ■ to. the Government in lUUti, which informed them of Mr. Kennavay's position with the firm of E. A. Smith and Co. But, more .than this, in a letter dated September 18, 1006, the High

Commissioner, dealing with the subject in detail, says: —

I may hero state that Mr. E. M. Kennaway was Air. li. A. Smith's partner, and when Jlr. Smith retired he carried on the shipping agency in the same name, and »u» appointed by me as New Zeulund Government shipping agent.

That letter, it is only fair to explain, is stated fb have gone astray between London and New Zealand. What is still more remarkable, the duplicate (all letters from the High Commissioner's office are tent in duplicate), which in the ordinary course would have followed by the next mail, also mysteriously disappeared., in 11:0-High office in London the records show that this correspondence was dispatched in the ordinary way—the Prime Minister does not question this—but the letters cannot be traced at this end. Accidents of this kind arc ol course liable to. happen, 'out it is particularly unfortunate that it should have happened in this case with both the original and mo duplicate. The public, after yesterday's disclosures, cannot be blamed if it forms a very poor opinion of tho grip which Ministers ' have on the business affairs of the country, and of tho loose methods which prevail in some oi the Departments of ;tho Statu.