SIR JULIUS VOGEL'S PETITION. (by telegraph,—own correspondent. )

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 122, 3 October 1885, Page 5

SIR JULIUS VOGEL'S PETITION. (by telegraph,— own correspondent. )

Wellington, September 30. I am fortunate in being ablo to give you o summary of the evidonce taken by the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Sir Julius Vogel. The petition presented by Mr Macandrew on behalf of Sir Julius Vogel states that the latter was AgentGeneral of the colony, and that he was director of the New Zealand Agricultural Company, a position which he was requested to resign j that he was appointed agent under the Inscribed Stock Act, and that he was to receive commission on the five million loan, and that he was considered agent under the new loan ; that he has received no commission ; that his appointment was cancelled, and no compensation was allowed him. He prays for relief. The report of the Committee on thispetitiou will be fresh in the minds of your readers. It was to the effect that, in view of the importance of the question involved, as well as the mass of correspondence and documentary evidence necessary to be examined and considered, it was impossible to arrive at a definito report. During the last session the Committee sat only four times, and examined the following witnesses :— Sir Julius Vogel, Sir George Grey, Sir F. Whitaker, Sir Win. Fitzherberfc, and Major Atkinson. At the first meeting, Sir Julius Vogel said : ~"(1) The claims I wish to bring before the committees are a claim to a commission of oneeighth on the £5,000,000 loan, incidental to which I shall refer to special services. (2) A claim to commission on negotiations not allowed, a claim to commission on conversion. (3) Claim to compensation for being deprived of agency for inscribed stock soon after I became Agent-General. Major Atkinson asked me if I would instead be inclined to tako the office of agent for inscribed stock. Major Atkinson left office, and the matter remained in abeyance and was not renewed by Sir George Grey. Some time after Sir George ttrey came into office, I became a director of the New Zealand Agricultural Company (Limited). At least three, and, I believe four or five members of tho Government knew of this, and wero favourable to my joining — Mr Stout, Mr Ballanco, Mr Larnach, and I am almost sure I had a communication from Mr Macandrew on the subject. Mr Sheeban knew ifc. I had no communication with Sir George Grey on tho subject previous to my joining, but Mr Stout stated in the House a short time ago that Sir George Groy knew of the Company, and had been asked to join himself, and know of my being asked to join." Sir Julius Vogel then put in a heap of correspondence relative to tho requests of Sir George Grey, and subsequently Sir John Hall requesting that ho should retire from the position of director oi tho Agricultural Company, and in which there does not appear to be much that is new. Sir Julius Vogel also related his view of the whole matter at considerable length. Very briefly, the points in di3pute seem to be as nearly as possible as follows :— On the 4th of August, 1579, the five million loan was assented to. Ab that time Sir Julius Vogel was Agent-General for the colony at a salary of £1,500 a year. Four days afterwards three persons were appointed loan agents— Sir Penrose Julyan, Mr Onimaney, and Sir J. Vogel. On the 11th December the Bank of England was authorised to receive tenders for the loan, and on the following day the loan was raised. In tho meantime, on the lOfch November, Sir Julius Vogel received a telegram which he rightly or wrongly treats as equivalent to dispensing with his services, and sinco the receipt of which he considers that he was acting only for oonven ience of Government. Sir Julius Vogel concluded his evidence with tho following remarks :— " I was given to understand, after Sir F. D. Bell's arrival Home, that the powers conferred by the Governor in-Council under the instrument of appointment were too extensive, but he conferred them upon me in common with the other agents as to the remuneration tho agents should receive under a new appointment. On the 17th June, 1881, the appointment was revoked, as I understood, solely on the ground that less extensive powers should be given in future. On the sth November fresh appointments were made of Sir F. D. Bell and Sir Penrose Julyan, with the same powers as before, but I was not included. I submit I have received a cruel wrong by this cancellation of my appointment and failure to reappoint me. The cancelment of my appointment and failuro to re-appoint me was a marked slur in the eyes of everyone who knew what an important part I had taken in procuring the passage of the Colonial Stocks Bill, and in making the arrangement with the Bank of England. It was an insult to me in tho face of the world. The sense of wrong and the suffering occasioned to mo by the feeling that the colony, to Berve which I had passed tho best years of my life, could put on me such an unwonted slight, defies description. At probably the nearly approaching close of a life, which has been passed much more in endeavours to serve others than in attempts to serve myself, I ask the Parliament of New Zealand to say if I have deserved the treatment I received in my deprivation of this office." Sir George Grey was examined at his own desire in order to state that a statement made by Sir Julius Vogel to the effect that he believed the Grey Government knew that it was intended to place him on the directorate if the Agricultural Company was not true. All that Sir George Grey is able to make out is that he certainly knew nothing of the Agent-General accepting such a position, and that as soon as he heard of it he demanded that the AgentGeneral should do one of two things— resign the directorship or the Agent-Generalship. The funny thing about this is that all the telegrams sent by Sir George Grey to Sir Julius Vogel are alleged to have been with the concurrence of the Cabinet, all tho members of which Sir Julius Vogel says knew of his position in the Agricultural Company, and approved of it. These members were Messrs Stout, Macandrew, and Ballance. This incident proves how well Sir George Grey had his team in hand. Major Atkinson, in his examination, says that the Hall Government held the same view as the previous Government — that the two positions occupied by Sir Julius Vogel were incompatible, and that the alternative offered to Sir Julius Vogel, and accepted by him, as agent for the inscription of stock, was not meant to apply so as to include commission on the five million loan then being raised. Major Atkinson is very emphatic on this point. In his opinion Sir Julius Vogel was Agent-General after that loan was passed, and although he hoped to float the loan, he did so as Agent-General, and was not therefore entitled to^ extra remuneration. For the services which Sir Julyan Penrose and Mr Ommaney performed with Sir Julius Vogel in connection with the floating of the loan, each reached £6,250. Sir J. Vogel, like the little pig of nursery lore, , "got none." Major Atkinson contends Bfr J.. Vogel'a. position

to be this: — He was one of three agents j two of them each received a commission of one-eighth per cent,; Sir Julius Vogel received nothing beoause at that time be waß Agent-General for the colony, and was being paid a regular salary for the discharge of those duties, and was not entitled to any other remuneration for extra services performed. Sir J. Vogel, of course, contends that he was not AgentGeneral, having previously received his conge, and that he was merely aoting for the convenience of the Government. This contention is based on the following telegrams which passed between Sir J, Vogel and Sir J. Hall ;— " Vogel, London. Wire names late Government knew assisting organise company, because statement respecting this knowledge. Reasonable time be allowed you arrange retire. Present Government agree inexpedient you remain director or engage home politics." " Hall, Premier New Zealand. Stout certainly, and beat my belief Macandrew and Ballance. Cannot name time resign. Shareholders would think unfair entertain such intention now. Am willing take loan agency, payment by percentage, and act AgentGeneral without salary long as suits Government. Reply." Sir Fredorick Whitaker takes a similar view of the matter to that stated by Major Atkinson. Sir Wm. Fiteherbert is the next witness examined. Although having no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the case, Sir William is well acquainted with the finances of the colony, and has also had responsible work in respect to the negotiation and conversion of loana ; hence the reason for his presence at the proceedings of the Committee. Sir William lays stress on the fact that the claim has been kept alive by the claimant, and that the work was well done. He holds that the just claim is untenable, inasmuch as it is a claim in respect of negotiation, and also in respect of conversion. He, therefore, reduces the claims to two — the commission on the negotiation of tho five million loan and compensation for deprivation of office. Sir William goes on to say : " With regard to the first, it is alleged, on the other side, that however desirous the Government might have been to meet tho viows of Sir Julius Vogel as to this claim, they were put out of court ; they nevor dissembled from doing so, because of tbe fact that he held office as Agent-General, and there lies the pomt — the crux. So far as receiving a commission whilst so acting as AgentGeneral, I think the Government were correct in their principle, and technically, under these circumstances, they were undoubtedly right, but in spirit I hold they were entirely wrong. The position at that time was lhafc Sir Julius Vogel had been called to account because of his having joined a certain directory that was held to be incompatible with his continuing to hold the office of Agent-General. In the communications that passed it came to this— that Sir Julius declined to give up his directory, and upon that there is a good deal of let us say " fencing," each holding his own opinions ovor a narrow ground ; but I would call attention to them in the evidence given by Sir Frederick Whitaker, and it entirely concurs with the rest of the evidence. Sir Julius Vogel says, "To which I replied this answer, * Cannot name time resign.'" Then the answer of Sir Frederick Whitaker is, "I recollect that, and it was considered," that is to say, it was considered in Cabinet (that is the interpretation I put on it). The expression " considered " and "we agree that you must resign within a reasonable time " ; that is to say Sir Julius Vogel had received as Agent- General " notice to quit " ; he could not, therefore, bo regarded as holding the office of AgontGeneral permanently, which was incompatible with the receipt of a commission for )he negotiation of the loan. Naturally he was functus officio ; he was no longer permanent Agent-General of the colony, and might any day have been, and could not have complained if he had been, peremptorily removed. This is what strikes me under tho circumstances. But now comes the negotiation of the said five million loan. Sir Julius Vogel was holding office at that time simply until his successor was appointed, and for the convenience of the Government. If ho had then considered that there would have been any obstacle to the receiving a commission for work which he is acknowledged to have performed ably he had only to telegraph out to say " negotiation of the loan suspended until you accept my resignation, which I now send to you." Is it credible that anyone in undertaking a duty the successful performance of which involves the deepest interest and prosperity of the colony that he represented — not a mere clerical work, but one requiring the utmost vigilance and judgment, and the exercise of the highest discretion as to whether it would be a failure or success, and it proved to be a success — would do this ? It was only a few months afterwards that his actual withdrawal from office took place, and can it be supposed that any one would have undertaken a duty in connection with two other persons in which he performed at least an equally important part with the other two if he had believed he was not to be paid, when he could have pursued this course, which was, I have said, open to him, and that he would have preferred holding office for six or eight months at the rate of £1,500 a year, equal to about £1,000, and to forego that which would have been preferable, and except on the technical ground that he was Agent-General, he would have been undoubtedly entitled to, viz., the same payment as the others— Sir Penroso Julyan and W. Omanney? That is to say that he coujd with justice to himself have foregone the payment of £6,250 that his co-adjudtors received, and only take in exchange £1,000 for an office, the holding of which was only from day to day. In rospect of this the calculation made is that Sir Julius Vogel is entitled undoubtedly to the same commission a? Sir Penrose Julyan and Mr Ommanney received, less the amount he was paid, if anything, between the negotiation of the loan, and his finally being relieved of office about eight months afterwards. I believe he is absolutely entitled to that. So much for my opinion on the first point. With regard to tho claim for deprivation of office, what has impressed me very much, and what I think it hangs upon is this, I which is set forth in a private letter of Sir John Hall's, the terms of which are set forward in an attractive form in the following terms : ' That there would be in all probability a considerable income to assist materially your position in London, whilst leaving you free to engage in other business,' and ' that this may be taken as a not unreasonable recognition of your services.' That is from the Premier of the colony. Subsequently a bill was passed by which only two appointments were provided for, and they were awarded to Sir F. Dillon Bell and Sir Penrose Julyan. Sir J. Vogel was not appointed, and this Sir W. Fitzherbert considers to have been a clear breach of faith, "The knocking on the head of a promise by Parliament baß nothing whatever to do with a promise of that sort made by the Premier of the colony," says Sir William. Here is certain work obtained, and a distinot promise from the Premier of the colony, and after they had taken Sir Julius Vogel into consultation as to how, abatements should be mwje. i»n4 Ma ppw^s reduced, after

they had got all his information on those points, they then go round and say — We will not have three agents ; we will 'only have two ; and although Sir Julius Vogel was promised it, this competence which was to be a proper recognition of his services is denied him, and he stands, in reference to the people amongst whom he lives and where he has to make a fresh start in life, with this stigma upon him. I Bay plainly to this committee, as one who may be considered to know j the bearings of these things, that if that case were brought before any twelve men I believe that a claim infinitely larger than that set forth by Sir Julius Vogel would be sustained. I wish to say further in reßpect of this claim by Sir Julius Vogel for commission on the five million loan, that if it dies now it will never die out altogether. If I am right in the view I take, it will be brought up again and again, if not by Sir Julius Vogel, by those who represent him, but will never be allowed to die until he is remunerated, and then by a much larger sum than ho now claims. That, Mr Chairman, is the result of study of the case. I am inclined on all points of his policy of finance in quite an opposite direction to that of Sir J, Vogel. I am bound to say that in justice to the consistency of the financial views I hold. But this is not a question of policy but of payment for work done and services rendered. I may state this to the Committee : — I have, in my position as Speaker of the Legislative Council, kept myself entirely aloof from matters of this sort, and the only license I allow myself is, if people come into my room and ask my opinion, I think there I may and do give my advice ; but I have never called upon Sir Julius Vogel, and have never seen him since his return to the colony, except on one occasion in public, on the Hutt racecourse, when I thought, aa President of the Club, it was a civility that I should go and say a word to him. That is the only occasion I have ever exchanged a word with Sir Julius Vogel since his coming out, and then this subject was not even alluded to. I have a high respect for Sir Julius Vogel, although we differ in our policy of financo as widely as any men in the country. I would not like to trust myself to say how strongly I differ from him, and my opinion in this is not the opinion of a person who admires his policy of finance. I say this— that if I do not know something about these matters, I ought to. Whatever ability I have had has been employed in the study of the finances of the colony ; I have had fifteen months' intercourse with all the leading man in England connected with the colonies; I have had charge of loans and conversions and the inacription of stock, I had many interviews with Mr Westgartb, who was one of the first persons who brought it forward. I thiqk Sir J. Vogel has done the work admirably that had to be ione, and I think he is entitled to that commission upon the negotiation of the five-million loan j and as to the injury dono him in a commercial point of view through the deprivation of office, I say it is greater than I care to name.