SIR JULIUS VOGEL AND MR ORMOND.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 206, 11 June 1887, Page 8

SIR JULIUS VOGEL AND MR ORMOND.

The proceedings in the House yesterday afternoon were enlivened by a very warm discussion between the Colonial Treasurer and Mr Ormond, arising out of a personal explanation made by the former respecting his appointment as a member of the Select Committee which sat last session re Government Insurance matters. Foi'tunately, the firmness of the Speaker in seeing that the forms of the House are strictly observed prevents that indulgence in unparliamentary language Avhich characterises the ; proceedings of some other colonial Parliamcnts,and while neither Sir Julius Vogelnor the member for Napier yesterday afternoon dared give the other the lie direct, there was some uncommonly close sailing to that point, and the retort courteous was certainly given. The bi ecze lasted the greater part of the hour, and theopinionamongmembers was that Sir J. Vogel was impolitic in bringing up the matter. In older that my readers may judge for themselves as to the merits of the dispute, I send you a tolerably full report of the discussion. The Colonial Treasurer having pro forma moved the adjournment of the Houce, made a personal explanation. He had, he said, j on a former occasion stated that he intended to reply to remarks Air Ormond had made about him, but he waited, as he said he would, for them to appear in Hansard. Mr Ormond said in Napier, substantially, what he (the speaker) was about now to complain of. He took exception to the statement then, and intended, had he been in better health, to hove gone to Napier to take the hon. member to task there. However, the hon. member had .given him an opportunity of dealing -with the matter in the House, by repeating the statement. The hon. gentleman said in effect that he had submitted the names of a committee he moved for in connection with the Government Insurance Association to the chairman of the Associaj tion, namely, the Colonial Treasurer. Then he said the Treasurer met him by saying "I must be on that Committee; the Prime Minister must be there al&o." The hon. gentleman said he replied "Oh, but we are going to try you," and went on to say, " I am glad to say that the Prime Minister himself at once saw the inconsistency of such a. proposal, and declined to have anything to do with it.'' Sir Julius Vogel went on tosaythathegavethemo'sc emphatic contradiction to these statements that the forms of the House would allow. Mr Ormond's statements were wholly and absolutely incorrect. He would state what had happened. Some hon. member, he believed it was Mr Ormond himself, came to him, during the progress of business in the House, and asked -whether he would approve of the names of the Committee which he had selected to inquire into the administration of the Government Insurance Association. He (the Treasurer) pointed out that there were one or two gentlemen named in the Committee who were notoriously bitter opponents of his, and he said further that, as the Association was under his control, why had he not been asked to sit upon the Committee 1 The reply was, " Oh, if you go upon it we shall have to take Fisher, and we don't want that " (shrugging his shoulders). He (the Treasurer) then suggested that the Premier should go upon it, and the Premier said, u I cannot go on the case, I am director of another Insurance Association."' That was exactly what took place. The hon. member then took off the names objected to and the Committee was formed. Was it likely that he would let the hon. member come and tell him " they were going to try him?" and if the hon. member had that idea he had acted scandalously, for what was the course of that Committee? If he was on his trial before a jury would it not have been right that the accusations againßt him should first have been made ? Immediately after Mr Luckie had been examined, he (Sir J. Vogel)was called. Sir Julius detailed the course pursued by the Committee in calling evidence, and said that with considerable difficulty he persuaded the hon. member to allow the other members of the Board to reply after Messrs Shannon and Fisher to statements which reflected on themselves and himself, and that he himself might be allowed to make a written statement. All he would say was that if he was on his trial the hon. member had acted in the matter in a scandalous manner, such as it would not be fit to try a dog in— let alone a man. A few days after the Committee sat Mr Douglas McLean, of Hawke's Bay, sent him down a copy of a column of matter which appeared in one of the newspapers, said to belong or to be controlled by the hon. member. That was written b'y a correspondent from Hastings, which town was part of the Heretainga Block, and the grievance was that the Insurance Department had not considered it desirable to letod a large loan to the town because legal proceedings were current as to the title of that block. Tho article suggested that the Insurance Association should be boycotted, and he did not know what else, in consequence of this awful outrage. When he saw this paper be went to Captain Russell, member for Hawke's Bay, whom everyone knew they could trust as a gentleman, and said it was an extraordinary thing that Mr Ormond was saturated with ideas of this kind, and asked him whether, since the hon. member had moved for the Committee to make an impartial investigation into the Government Insurance Association, ho thought he could trust him to conduct it impartially, or was it worth his while to bring the matter before the House 1 Captain Russell said, " I think you can trust him," and, he

did not, therefore, bring the- matter before the House. The Treasurer said he would further say, in conclusion that before Mr Ormond indulged in that system of accusation and mud-throwing he was so fond of he would do well to remember that in the pages of "Hansard", them were distinct charges against him. which he would not meet, out walked out of the House when they were suoken of — that ho had abused his public position for his own private ends, and that lie had better, before ho did- any further mud throwing, try to clear himself. The Premier corroborated the Treasurer's statement &o far as concerned Mr Ormond submitting the names to him. Mr Ormond said he believed he went byinvitation to submit the names, and though he did not remember the names hebelieved the gentlemen ho named were impartial and had no personal feeling against him. He certainly told the Treasurer they were going to try him. The Treasurer asked iVJr Tole whether he would be on the Committee. Mr Tole did not refuse. He (Mr Ormond) did not make any mention of M r Fisher, though he believed that gentleman -\\ as on the original Committee. Having great respect for that gentleman, he would be the last person to treat him with the indignity stated. He repeated that he told the Treasurer it would be improjjer for him to be on the Committee because "they were going to try him." As to Sir Julius Vogel's statement that ho had not reasonable opportunities to state his case, the hon. gentleman was also reflecting on other members of the Committee. He challenged members of the Committee to say whether he did anything improper, or failed to give the Treasurer every opportunity to make good his case. The hon. gentleman wished to make a final .statement, and in the end the Committee agreed to that course. As to the newspaper the hon. gentleman said belonged to him, or was under his control, that (statement was totally incorrect. He had no interest in any newspaper in this countiy, and had never exercised the smallest control, or attempted to do so, over any newspaper in the colony. He repudiated the statement as absolutely contrary to fact. He never saw the article in question. The hon. gentleman's statement wifch reference to the chaige made against him (Mr Ormond) was absolutely and totally incorrect, but much stronger i terms should be used. He defied him to prove that ho ever abused his public position, and he wished the hon. gentleman had the same record. The hon. gentleman was not one who could stand up in the House and say he was in that position. Consideiing what he did say in hh speech at Napier, the matter mentioned was a very small one. The hon. gentleman did not lefer to the other allegations made in that speech, nor refer to the statement that the Government was not one that could show an untainted record. He (Mr Ormond) put on record there the judgment of the House with regard to the hon. gentleman V conduct. What was the finding of the House with respect to the district railways, when public money was wrongly given away by the sanction and connivance |of that hon. gentleman ? That Hon -e unanimously regretted the tiansaction referred to as calculated to seriously affect and i impugn the integrity of any gontleman connected with it r and that it was? calculated to give rise to scandal. No^ne could point ! to him (Mr Ormond) as having been guilty ; of such conduct as that. Captain Sutter said that Mr Ormond had informed him at the time that he had told the Treasurer that they were going to " try him " The Treasurer, replying,, said he believed that hon. members who had known him for years would believe that he was utterly incapable of telling an untruth to the House. He reiterated the statement with reference to the Committee, As to the purchase of district railways debentures, he had been unfairly treated by the Committee that sat on that question,, inasmuch as ho had not been allowed to know the evidence before the Committee to : reply to it. When he gave his evidence, he was not aware of the existence of a letter subsequently produced. Members, hepointed out, had private business of theirown which they attended to in WellingtonSome of them would not come to Wellington* otherwise. He claimed that in this instance he had acted in the interests of' the country when he bought the debentures. He accused Mr Ormond of making statements against him which Gould only proceed from a malignant and vindictive mind. He had been asked why it was that the hon. member had persecuted him as he had done for the last three years. It had been suggested that it was because the hon. gentleman was aggrieved that he was not sent, for when this Parliament first met. Whea he (the Treasurer) formed a Government,, he was asked by some of the hon. member's friends whether Mr Ormond could be Premier, and he said " Certainly not." The matter then dropped.

State of Auckland Hospital. In the coiu'se of his report, the Inspector makes the following reference to the hospital in Auckland :— " On the date of my last visit there were in the Hospital seventy-one males and twentyone females. I made careful inquiries of the patients alone, and found that they spoko in the highest terms of their treatment, both by doctors and nurses ; in fact, it is quite apparent that the patients are well attended in all respects. Especially, I formed a very high opinion of the care and ability of the Lady Superintendent, Miss Crisp.' At my last visit in May, I found the staff and Miss Crisp nearly worn out by nursing a large number of fever cases, nineteen of which were then in the Hospital. To this cause I attribute the somewhat untidy appearance of some of the wards. At present everything is working smoothly, and order and neatness are ' manifest. One drawback is tho wornout bedsteads, which I hope will soon be replaced by new ones. I was surprised to find that no record is kept of the days and hours at which the honorary staff visit the Hospital, 80 that I found it impossible to ascertain with sufficient definiteness the facts required to prove ||a complaint I heard from many patients, viz., that some of the staff are irregular in their attendance. The effect of this (or, a«some say, the cause) is that Dr. Bond practically conducts the treatment of many patients who never sco any doctor at all. However this may be (and I regret I cannot make my complaint more specific), I am quite satisfied that Dr Bond is most painstaking and efficient in the discharge of his duties. The question whether this zeal is such as to lead him to encroach on the functions of the visiting staff I must leave to the local authorities." Praise is given to Mr Schofield for the manner in which he has carried out his duties. It is interesting to note that the total revenue for Auckland Hospital was L 9,009 ; Dunedin, L 6,338 ; Christchurch, L 5,776 ; Wellington, L 7,703. Auckland only got L 35 from subscriptions, but L 2,700 from rents and other revenues.

The Mount Eennie affair is to be reopened, and probably some important relations will be made