FISHER-ATKINSON CONTROVERSY.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 382, 6 July 1889, Page 6

FISHER-ATKINSON CONTROVERSY.

' WELLINGTON, J»ly 2. Last week I forwarded a summary of part of this Fisher- Atkinson correspondence that has now become historic, and which yet promises to be one of the ''sensations of the session. That summary was entirely from the standpoint from which the Premier, according to his letter, viewed'tfhe matters discussed. Now I give to your readers a summary of what Mr Fishdr has to say on the subject. This is contained in a ldng letter of some sixty odd pages foolscap : ajid after carefully perusing it as I have done, one can well understand why Financial Statement or no Financial Statement, the leply to that letter has not as yet been forwarded by Sir Harry Atkinson. No doubt' reply will be ready to-day, for Tuesday is* the' day on which the Premier hoped to 'lay the correspondence before the House. The Ministerial organ has declai'ed that this is impossible bofore Wednesday at' least. This letter sets the whole matter very plainly before the Premier, for in it Mr Fisher takes the letter I summarised last week paragraph by paragraph, refutes each charge, hurls back recrimination on recrimination until an unprejudiced critic is bound to admit that he has made out a very clear case-— a case thai in open, debate will be hard to upset, and as he counts the fullest inquiry, will probably in such open debate be made even stronger. The letter is dated Apt il 23rd, which letter Mr Fißher in his an.swer states he is to believe Sir XL Atkinson declined to publish except under pro • tection of Parliamentary privilege. In opening up the subjecfe Mr Fisher styles the Premier's letters a^ somewhat comic owing to the inconsistencies contained in them. Speaking of the letter of 26th April (reviewed last week) Mr Fisher says: "It is composed of after thought and side issue, for if the allegations contained in that letter are true, and if you ontertained the opinions of "my actions which in that letter you profess to entertain, why was not the letter written on Ist April, not on 32rd ? and, if my acts were surrounded by so much deception and dishonour why do you offer to withdraw your letter of April Ist ? Actions such as yours are utterly inconsistent and indefensible, and I think will be apparent to any unbiassed mind." Then comes dissection of Sir H. Atkinson's letter, and, as onemight expect, some interesting disclosures are made. Speaking: of the Cabinet meeting of March when th© question of the Canterbury runs was discussed, he says : " The Hon. Mr Hislop assailed the Hon. Mr Richardson in his usual unfeeling manner, the consequonco of which was that the Hon. Mr Richardson returned to you 'after the Cabinet meeting to say that he would no longer tolerate the offensive manner and offensive language of the Hon. Mr Hislop." The disputes about brewery cases, he shows, were referred to the -Hon. feir F. Whitaker and Mr Stevens for their opinion, as Messrs Richardson and Mitchelson sided with Mr Fisher ; and Messrs Fergus and Hislop weie against him. Their decisions were decidedly favourable to himself, but he complains that, discourteously, they were never shown to him by the 1 Premier, nor was he allowed any privilege in connection with them. When this was reterred to the Minister he shows that both Messrs Fergus and Hislop had told the Premier that either they or Mr Fisher would have to leave the Ministry, and he accuses the membe v s. of the Ministry of having endeavoured to influence Sir F. Whitaker and Mr , Stevens when considering the breweiy • business. He detailed all the work and travelling done by him in connection with this matter, but &ta f es he might have saved himself ail his plans, " tor it had been determined during my absence from Wellington, as I afterwards ascertained, that 1 should be forced to retire from the Ministry, and that at the time (iMarch 27th) the' Hon. Mr Stevens, the Hon. Mr Fergus and I crossed at New Plymouth, the Hon. Mr Fergus was armed with authority to offei my portfolio to .Mr J. B. Whyte, in Auckland." Mr Fisher's resignation was not asked for until April. Mr Fisher reiterates that the brewery cases vverenot bheimmediatecau&eof thedilferences in the Cabinet, and though he difiored with the Cabinet upon eight large questions of public policy the real or active difference arose out of the peculiar influence exercised by a section of the Cabinet in regard to the appointments to Railway Boards, appointments to Supreme Court Bench, and to the proposed appoint' ment of an Engineor-in-Chief. He speaks of Hon. Mr Hislop's "Grandiloquent samples of his ' precedence' as a'Cabinet Minister which always had theefiectof excitingone's mirth as being extremely comic." By dates and figures Mr Fisher shows that the question of the brewery prosecutions which now the Premier considers of such vital colonial importance, he did not on March 4th considerimportant enough to give up an hour from a private engagement to discuss, for he declined to do so when at Wanganui when asked to by Mr Fisher. The lace Minister of Education shows by letters from Messrs Atkinson, Bell (Crown Prosecutor), Glasgow (Under-Secretary of Customs), and others that his actions about the brewery prosecutions were consistent and politic. After stating how in one of his letters Sir H. Atkinson characterised the Junction Brewery cases as the worst of the three, as having been " guilty of systematic fraud," having " perpetrated a series of gross frauds," and stating that the offender must be made to take 'the .consequences of his fraudulent act, • and further accused Mr Fislier of screening the manager as being- his personal friend ; yet when a conviction was secured, Atkinson turned round, and nob only mitigated the fine, but restored the forfeited brewery plant. From these Mr Fisher makes deductions that, to say the least, could not have been pleasant to the Premier. After his charges against his late colleague, this part of the correspondence forms in itself a complete vindication of Mr Fisher, unless Sir H. Atkinson in his reply has some .new facts to produce, which hardly seems lilcely, so thoroughly does Mr Fi&her thresh out j the subject. Every point mentioned by Sir Harry in his letter received attention from Mr Fisher. , - His excuse for continuing to act as Minister after his resignation was asked is, that if he had left then there were serious arrears of work to overtake, consequent on the worry of his duties in connection with Customs, You will remember that in his letter Sir H. Atkinson, speaking of Mr Fisher's Education Bill, states that it was drafted by the Rev. Habens partly, in such a way that he gives one the inapt ession that Mr Fisher had had little or no hand in it, and that the credit he claimed for it was only as borrowed plumos. Mr Fisher has something to" say about this. "What I have said about my Education Bill," he ' says, "is strictly accurate, but it is quite in accord with your habitual disparagement of other men's labours that you should speak in disparaging terms of my connection with this Bill. Good or bad, every provision, every idea contained, is mine." He does not claim originality for

them, but does claim that they .were only included in his Bill after personal observation and examination of their working by himself. The outline he submitted to the Cabinet, and he goes on to say, "It would be as sensible to charge Mr Habens with retaining: my material which was placed in his hands for the purpose of drafting 1 ' the Bill, as to charge me with retaining his draft manuscript. The charge, if charge it can be called, is positively childish." He then explains how the manuscript was retained and had now been returned. He does not leave the subject without treating the Premier to some very sarcastic remarks about how his Bills are drafted. Sir Harry had complained of the irregular publication of a synopsis of the Bill, bub Mr Fisher show* that such publications are not unusual, and then says :— "There are, v I believe, instances on record where Sir Harry Atkinson has published a synop&is of a Bill to ascertain how it would take with the public." The Premier's complaint that he did not bubmit the Bill when drafted to the Cabinet if> mot by the reply that Mr Fisher was then Ministerially dqfunpt. Besides, he says, "I had notreceive'd an unprecedented amount of encouragement when previously I had described the general working of the Bill to the Cabinet ; for outside of yourself, who wished #to see Education Boards merged" into County Councils, a step to destroy autonomy of the 1 education system, which I could no,t ( approve as tend- , ingtoomuch in the direction of your'Havvera speech of 1889, in which yqu expressed this belief that a'^return to denominationalism was not impossible, the only other member of' the Cabinet who took what may be termed a distinct interest in the subject wai the' Hon. Mr Fei'gus, who said that clauses relating to technical education were 'bosh.' To be candid, i did nob look for much educational inspiration in the direction of the Cabinet." The Premier's asking him to re&ign and asking the Government to dismiss him come in for much comment. Mr Fisher treats this portion of the subject in a clear and safci&facoory manner 1 , not forgetting at times to be very sarcastic at the expense of his late chief. In his' letter referred to last week, Sir 11. Atkinson states that one reason why he asked Mr Fisher to resign was because he had had printed at public expense, and for his own private use, a tile ot papers relating to the brewery prosecutions, and to Jackman, who had Jaid the first charge against him. Mr Fisher shows that it was impossible for this to have been a rea c on for his resignation being required, because the Premier knew nothing about the printing until after Mr Fishor bad resigned. Mi' Fisher then proceeds to explain his reasons for printing. After referring to 'what" he declares to be ijnspiied articles,' adverse to him in the " New Zealand Times," he says : " I kpew the case I ' should have to refute, and I determined to provide. Aware of the existence of an intrigue again&t me, in which three members of the Cabinet were engaged, 1 determined not to be called all unprepared. I knew that you would have full access to departmental papers on the case, you intended ■to make against me, and, do you think I am really such an inrfdeent person as to be so neglectful of my own interests as to leave myself in such a position for it ? This was not a case governed by any ordinary rulesofetiquette. Iprinted papers, and they were printed not for my own use, but for the use of Parliament, notwithstanding your expression. If the opinion is to the contrary, they will be duly placed before Parliament. You Say all this has been done secretly without the know.lodge oi any of your colleagues. Am I a child ? I had been wary of having- to moot you with my hands tied belnrild my ba'c,k. Armed with these figures I shall meet you on equal terms. Put this general question —Is not every man entitled to the best available defence ? These papers were necessary as a defence to charges foreshadowed in your letter of April Ist. As to Jackman ; how fortunate that I have copies of the papers relating to him !" Then Mr Fisher goes into the evidence given by the' Jatter personage at the brewery trials. M r Fifcher goes 6n after that to the eighth large question upon which he differed from the Cabinet. He prefaces it with extracts from the Premier's letters showing how he (Mr Fisher) deferred to other members, and refuting the " common 'and erroneous impression that I am the impracticable man with whom nobody can agree." Upon the appointment of lailway expert he shows that only himself and Mr Mitchelson were for such an appointment, and speaks in scathing terms of the treatment of Mr Kee by the Government. Be the appointment of Judge Denniston he says it is quite true that after the appointment he (Fisher) said nothing further on the subject and thus explains :—: — "We were all so heartily sick of the vacillating indecision gf certain members of the Cabinet, and of the u n gentleman I y and unfeeling language of two particular members of the Cabinets that not one cared or dared to refer to the subject again." From that time he dates the disruption of the Cabinet. He is very ironical about the appointment of Engineer-in-Chief, and this part of tho letter will not be pleasant reading to Parliament or Ministry. He shows how he disagreed with the Premier on the property tax question, and how he had discussed it with him. The next count is the. Te Kooti busine&s, for which he severely blames the Ministry, and from his letter we gather it was he who influenced the Cabinet in arresting Te Kooti when they did. He says, " Your defence of your views upon the question of land nationalisation and pauper farms does not interest me. I have little sympathy with the doctrine^ of the Socialist and the Gommunist." These are the principal points of this letter, which willcause.somecommot.ion when ib sis printed and circulated. There,. 'are many private personal matters that I have not touched 1 upon thab hardly bear removal piecemeal, and we can understand' that in a letter of 68 pages a summary has to be very short compared with the original. A great part of the letter is taken up with the brewery question, and on this Mr Fisher complains very bitterly of the Premier's want of loyalty to a colleague. Altogether -the letter is teeming with' personalities,* but lets in a "marvellous light on the secret workings of the Ministry at the time. The trouble is just started, as the matter is sure to be debated very fully in the House, when we may expect to hear more revelations and more recrimination 8.

Yes ! It is- certainly true. Ask any of your friends who have purchased there. Garlick and Cranwell have numerous unasked for and very favourable commendations from country customers on their excellent packing of Furniture, Crockery, and Glass, &;c. Ladies and gentlemen about to furnish should remember thab Garlick and Cran well's is the Cheap Furnishing Warehouse of Auckland. , Furniture to suit all classes ; also Carpets, Floor Cloths and all House Necessaries. If your new house is nearly finished, or you are going to get married, visit Garlick and ,Cranwell, Queen-street and Lome-street, Auckland. Intending purchasers can have » catalogue sent free.