THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1881. MR. REES' £300.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2290, 4 August 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1881. MR. REES' £3OO.

Sik George Geet's Ministry was justly celebrated for the number of things it was just on the point of doing, and never did. Amongst this number there was the appointment of a Commission to inquire fully into the whole question of Native rights to land on the West Coast of the North Island, and Sir George's Government proposed to have engaged counsel to get up evidence and represent the interests of Natives before such Commission. The Ministry was however defeated on July 29th, 1879, and Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of the following month, prior to a dissolution. On July the 29 th then the Ministry practically died, and was constitutionally unable to propose or carry out any measures not absolutely necessary for the immediate conduct of public affairs. Indeed the Governor in granting the dissolution, after stating that he did so because the Ministry had lost the confidence of the representatives of thepeople, and were about to appeal from them to the country, further declared—"lt is indispensable in such circumstances, if Ministers do not at once resign, that Parliament should be dissolved with the least possible delay, and that, meanwhile, no measures shonld beprop3sed that may not be imperatively required, nor any contested motion. whatever brought forward." It was clear that the Commission proposed by the Ministry eould not be appointed at that juncture. But between the 29th of July, the date of the defeat, and the 11th of August, the date of the prorogation,, two singular transactions took place. On the 2nd of August a sum of £l5O was paid to Mr. Rees as a retaining fee, he Laving apparently been appointed counsel to appear before a Commission that was not in existence and very probably never would be. On the 4th of August a further payment of the same amount was made, so that Mr Rees pocketed £3OO. "We observe that in the report of Tuesday's Parliamentary proceedings the " Lyttelton Times," in its issue of yesterday, makes this sum to be £3O, and the mistake is not corrected in its evening edition. Telegrams are often so mixed., and printers are occasionally so very careless, that we feel sure our contemporary will thank us for calling its attention to this slight error, and it may well set its readers straight in the matter on the first opportunity. The sum was £3OO, paid in two instalments of £l5O each. To pay any lawyer a retaining fee of £3OO for services that would probably never bo required would be in any case, a strange proceeding. If any private individual acted in this way it would probably be mooted that he should be shut up in a mad house: if any trustee acted in this way he would assuredly find himself placed in a very awkward position. But in tho case under review there are further points to be considered which make the transaction even more irregular than a private one would have been. Mr. Rees was at the time a member of the House of Representatives, and the money was paid without a vote, though Parliament was in session at the time of payment. The above is a brief epitome of what took place, the remainder is mere surplusage. The money was in point of fact paid to Mr. Sievwright, the payment being recommeded by Mr. Hoani Nahe, a member of the Ministry, and Mr. Sievwright handed the cash over to Mr. Rees. Mr. Hoani Nahe's evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, when thoy were investigating the affair, was amusing, if not instructive. He stated that ho thought the Natives should be represented by "lawyers to look into the promises which had been made by the Government." This was in face of the fact that the Natives themselves refused to accept any advice whatsoever. But the idea did not suggest itself to Mr. Hoani Nahe. No —Mr. Rees made the first suggestion on the subject, and advised that he himself should be employed. Then Mr. Rees later went on to say that he wanted the money in a great hurry, and, although Mr. Nahe thought it would be quite time enough to pay the money after the Commission was appointed instead of before, he was dragged into recommending the payment because Mr. Rees and his friend Mr. Mackay were constantly asking for it. Mr. Rees wrote out the voucher himself, making Mr. Sievwright the imprestee. Mr. Nahe also said in his evidence: — " Another reason urged by Mr. Rees was that the money was standing in my name, and, if the Government went out of office, it was probable that the money would not ue available afterwards."

This scandal—for it is nothing more or less—has been before Parliament several times, and members are getting rather sick of the subject, but that is not the question. The subject is an unsavoury one, but it must bo dealt with, for the Auditor-General wants to know what he must do in the inattor. There is the £3OO illegally paid to Mr. Roes, and it has not been refunded. The person primarily liable appears to us to be the Treasury Clerk, who, in obedience to instructions from the Cabinet, paid the sum out of imprest moneys in his possession. But it would bo singularly hard if this unfortunate individual were " run in"' for acting according to instructions. But under Part VIII. of the Public Revenues Act, IS7S, the Executive have full power to deal with the case, all public moneys expended without appropriation by Parliament, or without the warrant of the Governor being deemed to be a debt c £ the Crown by ike persons being members of the Executivo Council at the time

•when such expenditure occurred. The Hon. Mr. Johnston appears to consider that it were hotter that the affair should be quietly burked, and the Ministry probably think that any action that might be taken by them would be looked npon as a party move. But if this £3OO eventually comes out of the Consolidated Pnnd the taxpayers will have to put their lands in their pockets to pay Mr. Rees for doing nothing, and in order to shelter the late Grey Goveument. We ourselves should prefer to see the affair carried out to its logicpl, though bitter, conclusion.

THE STAR CHAMBER REVISED. Otjk readers are probably by this time aware that three of the Corporation officials have received notice that their services will be dispensed with after a month. Now there would ho nothing peculiar about this were it not for the circumstances which surround it. There exists a committee of the Council called the departmental committee, to which is submitted the various details—subject always to the concurrence of the Council —connected with the working of the departments. Thi3 committee has so far overstepped the bounds as absolutely to dismiss three officers of the Council appointed by and responsible to the Council as a whole, without consulting the general body. Such a piece of gross injustice haß hardly ever come nnder our notice. Once allow this principle to be acknowledged, and there will be an end to any safety for public servants. A hole-and-corner meeting of the committee is held, very probably only a bare quorum being present, and men who are the servants of the ratepayers dismissed without anyone knowing why. The fact of the Mayor being weak enough to sign the notices thus given in an irregular and unjust way is also something astonishing. It was his duty as chief executive officer of the Council, if the committee failed in their duty, to decline to take act or part in such a tyrannical and illegal proceeding. If reconstruction is required—and with this question just now we have nothing to do—then the proper course for the committee to pursue was to bring up a report to the Council recommending that notice be given, and then allow the Council to adept or reject that recommendation. But we protest most strongly against this attempt on the part of one or two to ride rough shod over the officers of the Council. We do not here propose to discuss the question whether the committee were right or wrong in their wish for reconstruction. What we contend for is a principle, and one which should be preserved inviolate, viz,, the right of eveiy officer of the Council before he is dismissed to have his case decided npon by that body as a whole, and not by a clique or small section of it. As we take it, despite the fact that the Mayor has signed these notices of dismissal, the whole proceeding is illegal. At any rate, the matter savours very stiongly of injustice, and we trust will not be allowed to remain where it is.