EXPLANATION WANTED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1177, 12 July 1911, Page 6

EXPLANATION WANTED.

In another column we print a very interesting footnote to the history of the famous banquet of farewell to the Prime Minister and the Attor-ney-General. The feature of that affair was the absence of the Mayor, and everybody here was under li- J impression that Mn. Wilfokd's _ absence was due to Ills strong views concerning some aspects of the function. Public opinion was certainly with Mn. Wilford in the matter. We now find that Ladv Stout has explained to the London weekly Truth that, the fact was that Dit. Findlay declined to attend the banquet if the Mayor presided. It is incredible that Lady Stout would have made so positive a statement to a newspaper of the weight and high standing of Truth unless she had received the story from someone whose authority she could consider the best possible. The Chief Justice, Sir llobert Stout, we know, presided at the function, but he would not be in a position to supply particulars of the dispute for publication even if, as is unlikely, he had been the confidant of the parties. If, as seems probable, the Attorney-General was Lady Stout's authority, what docs the Wellington public think about it? Those of us who are not Ministerialists may derive some amusement from the petty internal quarrels of the party in power, but, of course, such quarrels arc of small interest to us. But this is something more. If Lady Stout's informant has told her the truth, the citizens of Wellington have been seriously affronted. We have little in common with Mn. Wilford, but ho is the Mayor, and as Mayor his dignity is the city's dignity. Any insult to him in his Mayoral office is an insult to tho city that every citizen is bound to resent. This particular insult, if Lady Stout was not misinformed, was a double-dyed insult. Tho Mayor wa.s the only proper_person to preside over what was claimed to be a citizens' banquet to the Prime Minister. It would have been improper in a high degree had tho Prime Minister objected to his prosiding. But what are we to say of the objection coming from a quite secondary guest, who also was not a delegate to the Imperial Conference at all, but who accompanied the Prime Minister to England for reasons- unknown to the public. The matter is one that the Wellington

public will wish to have cleared up. The Attorney-General's explanation upon his return to New Zealand will be awaited with interest.