HARRY MEIGGS.

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 113, 1 August 1885, Page 4

HARRY MEIGGS.

The Speaker is, of course, as your readers aro aware, a great stickler for etiquette, and, very properly X think, takes it out of any jovial members who seek to make a joke at the expense of the dignity of tho House. The funny member for Dunstan had given notice to ask tho Colonial Treasurer whether tho " well-known " Harry Meiggs, of Caiifornian, Mexican, and Peruvian notoriety, is in any way connected with the firm of Messrs Meiggs and Sons referred to in tho Treasurer's East and West Coast Railway statement as a " well-known firm of railway contractors and financiers," and if tho Government is not in possession of such information, whether they will make tho necessary inquiries? When Mr Fyke arose in the House, beautified as usual with a button-hole andgaiters, andfairly bubbling with mirth at the shock he was going to give Ministers, a pin might have been heard to drop in the House, so deep was the stillness. Mr Pyke having read his question, wanted to know if the "Harry Meiggs" had not once done "the Pacific slope." The Speaker here interposed, and objected to Vincent's language. "Well," went on the imperturbable member, "i3he a man who 'went under' frequently ?" The Speaker again interposed, when Mr Pyke finally moderated his query ! into "Was he a man who had disappeared from various scenes of action ?" He then went on to speak of the man's bad reputation, mentioning that a contracting firm at Tasmania had given a good deal of trouble. Sir Julius Vogel, in reply, said that he had no personal knowledge of the firm, but it was a well-known one, and had constructed several railways in South America. Henry Meiggs, the founder of the firm.had, he understood, been unfortunate in California in early life, and went from there to Peru, where he made a large fortune, and became the head of the present firm. Henry Meiggs, he believed, was now dead. He did not believe that the firm had had anything to do with the Tasmanian railway. He believed that the question on the Order Paper had been placed there for the pur- 1 pose of prejudicing a matter before the House. They were not bound to any particular contractors, and could let the railway be made by whom they pleased.