TAMMANYISM

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 203, 6 December 1910, Page 3

TAMMANYISM

AND SCURRILOUS PAMPHLET. OPPOSITION ORGANISER'S EXPLANATION. .■' ■ -Mi'. R. R. Martin, the Opposition organiser, in reply to the Premier's reference to his connection ■with the pamphlet, write-: "The pamphlet published bv Mr. \ ictor Braimd was given to me in Southland on the. loth September. 1007. I Skimmed through portions of it in the train on the following da v. and also in the evening at Core, and to the best of my knowledge there were only four men tvho knew that I had the pamphlet. On ftiy return to Wellington on the -20 th September, I was informed that Sir Joseph Ward knew that I possessed a copy which I was using for political purposes. I explained my connection with the pamphlet to Mr. A.' L. D. Eraser, who was at that time member for Xapier, and asked him! if he'would convey to Sir Joseph Ward my assurance that I had never used the pamphlet in public, and never would use it to injure him, either privately or .publicly. Mr. Fraser told me he Had seen Sir Joseph on my behalf,, and he (Sir Joseph).'willingly accepted my statement.. I am glad, to" say that since that time, which is now considerably over three years, I have- never even, handled'the pamphlet in question, and much surprised that the Prime Minister, after having accepted my explanation, should have made the statement which he did. Coming now to the pamphlet Of more recent issue, I .challenge anyone to say that I have ever spoken other than in terms of strong indignation in regard to those i who are responsible fpr its publicationand distribution. In Auckland -during the last bye-election, I.; was approached by someone connected 7 with'the pamphlet ;and asked if I .would supply a list of 'names of people in the" provinces who would, assist in ,the,.sa]e,.of..the. boolr. I ■made it very clear that I -would have no•thing to do with it. In July of this year I received a communication from Mr. W. A. Quin, of Hawera,'.who stated' that there was a rumor to the effect that the •Reform Party had some indirect connection with the pamphlet,.and.hoped it was not -true. Aly reply,' written on 23rd July, stated- 'that neither the New Zealand Political Reform League nor any ■ member of the Reform Party had any ■connection with" the pamphlet" In Hastings during the Hawke's Bay Show.l was accosted by a man who was selling the wretched things, and when asked to buy ,one I- told the vendor' I would like to see him put in gaol for selling them. Lying rumors and statements have been .persistently circulated to the effect that the Opposition were'assisting, financially or •fherwise, with the production o*f the pamphlet, and it was only a desire. .to avoid giving undue publicity that prevented us from publishing an open denial, A persistent attempt has .been made by friends of the Government to use this pamphlet against the Opposition for political capital, knowing wdl that we' Hvould stand discredited in the eyes of the public if we stooped, to despicable' tactics of that kind to injure the party in power, and I cannot let the opportunity pass which has arisen unsought by us of again dissociating the Opposition in every way from any connection whatever with the publication of the pamphlet/ ■which has now achieved so much notoriety."

THAT LETTER. Mr. W. D. Anderson writes to the Stratford Post:—Shy-1 have been asked to state exactly what-1 know of the now famous letter from Mr. Sym.es to Mr.' McCluggage. To the best "of my recollection what happened was this: The. ' m ter was shown to me as a'dlrecior of the company. I retnined it. made a copy, and mJEf 6n llAiulei fcMfc tile original, I considered the letter constituted a corrupt practice on the part of Mr. Symes and handed the copy to Mr. Hemingway' secretary of Mr. Hine's committeefmost probably with a remark to the effect that he had better keep it, as it mi«ht come in useful later on. I also showed him the original letter. That was done before the IDOS election. After the eleci *ion, Mr, Hemingway, the solicitor of the party, and myself decided to obtain, and did obtain, counsel's opinion, which was to the effect that the letter did constitute a corrupt practice. We. considered the opinion, ami discarded the legal aspect, and looking* at the whole" tiling from a practical point of view, we reaf-' ised that by some the letter Would be considered a confidential communication, and that our party might bring discredit on itself by making use' of it. As we wished to be quite free, even from the suspicion of this, we decided to let the matter drop. There the matter did drop as far as I was concerned. The copy of the letter was handed Mr. Hemingway as secretary of Mr. Hine's then committee, and he had no authority from me to make use of it in connection with his private feud with Mr. Symes. I understand that the only other 'person who was concerned in this transaction, the solicitor of the party (who was not myself), did his .best to prevent Mr. Hemingway from reading the letter at Mr. Symes' meeting. That clearly shows his impression of the understanding arrived at when we three decided to" let the matter drop. Your paper had no connection with these transactions, and I take the entire responsibility for the use I made of the letter shown me. I mit»ht mention that I have explained all these circumstances to Mr. McCluggaae, and have his authority for saying that he does not find fault with wihat I did. These latter proceedings of Mr. Hine I had neither connection nor sympathy with.

A LOST OPPORTUNITY. When Mr. Hine rose to reply everybody was strictly at attention (says the Parliamentary correspondent of the Eltham Argus, Hon. W. Carncross' paper). It was felt that this was an important moment in Mr. Hine's political life; a moment such as inspires most men to excel themselves and set up a fight which, win or lose, they will be remembered by. But Mr. Hine is not one of that sort and his speech was the most disappointing effort of the evening. He spoke for only a little over fifteen minutes, part of that time being occupied in looking for a page in Hansard, which he liad a little difficulty in obtaining. I disclaim any bias in commenting thus. Let anyone read Mr. Hine's speech and say it was worthy of the occasion; he threw away the opportunity of his life. And it was an opportunity; such as few men get. He spoke his few minutes, then stretched himself out at full length upon his settee and, to all appearance, went to sleep. What a spectacle! Here was a man who had made tlve country ring with charges of Tammany ism; who had been granted a Parliamentary committee upon which were his political leader and his strongest supporters. He had had the services of one of the ablest lawyers in the Dominion. He had been afforded the opportunity of ransacking the files of Government documents to aid him in ferretting out anything in the shap? of' Tammanyism. He had put the country to great expense, and at the crucial moment, when his political comrades expected much from him, ae delivered a weak, ten minutes' speech and then lay down, to all appearances asleep, whilst bis colleagues, alert and active, kept to their

A CHANGE IX THE ATMOSPHERE.

\ Continues the same- correspondent: Then Dr. Rangihiroa rose. He is a halfcaste. He said it was his fortune, or misfortune-, to have mixed blood in his veins. Even he, he said, with certain advantages of education, and close contact with the, pakeha, had a difficulty in- understanding the ethics of the white man. How dillicult, then, was it for a man like Kaihau to understand where the very fine line was drawn between impropriety and illegality. In open meeting assembled Mr. Massey had been publicly presented bv his admirers with £looo.'What for? To the Maori mind, for services rendered in Parliament. The Maori could see no wrong in that; no impropriety, no illegsility. The Maoris could find no written law against it. If Kaihau had offended by receiving payment for work done there was no written law to say so. What did he know about the ethics of the pakeha? He could not see that he had done anything improper. Dr. Rangihiroa spoke for only about fifteen minutes. About this time the senior Government Whip was being communicated with by members of his party. Their communications wore to the effect that they would not vote for a resolution- of expulsion of Kaihau. Their sympathy had been completely gained. A mild resolution of reproof was carried. That is to say, mild.so far as the Maori mind comprehends it. The same resolution if it affected a European would probably involve his sec-king absolution at the hands of his constituents,. So the man who in the afternoon -members would have been prepared to- expel in the evening was being congratulated upon the defence he had put up. Regarding the celebrated pamphlet, the Argus correspondent adds: It has overshot the mark. It has brought Sir Joseph Ward to his feet and he has shown how he has been persecuted. He has given facts and figures that he has 'kept-tojumself for 14-ycars. A .wave of •sympathy has set in, and scores of prominent Oppositionists outside the House are promising him their support to show, their resentment of the foul tactics that are being used against him. The Liberal

Party have hardened up; they presented him with an address on Thursday night. The failure of Miv.lline to identify the Ministry with his charges, of Tammanyism, and the publication of a blackguardly pamphlet will be valuable assets to the Liberal Party at the next election. AN UNCALLED-FOR DEFENCE.

The Wellington Post (Opposition), in a leading article, says: "We regret that Sir Joseph Ward considered that he was impelled.to offer a defence for which the preponderating healthy proportion of ,New Zealand's population had not called. The forcefulness of the speech was admirable : , but While giving him all credit for its quality, we still contend that it .was not necessairy. We dp not question Sir Joseph Ward's sincerity in his beliei that Providence had intervened to ruined his enemies of 1890 one by one till thi 'tally was fourteen, but such a statement .in the course of a debate which has run" on party lines was unpleasant. The Prime Minister also made another mistake. He appeared to have a firm belief, -based on flimsy evidence, that the dissemination of the disgusting, pamphlet emanated with the Opposition. Indignant denials were promptly recorded by 'Mr. Ma-ssey. and his supporters,- hut the repudiation was greeted with cheap, cynicism and vulgar doubt by some mem,bers on the Government side. This stupid insistence on the Opposition's, ■guilt is too grotesque for serious di^-fls-'sion by sane men." ,

GOVERN. „..„.,'. MHST,

The discreditable 'Stacks that have been so persistently made in' 'Parliament on. Sir Joseph Ward, as the head of t'hfi ■Government,',.have been caused with ah object. The Opposition 'has been associated with those attacks. Take the Hine charges as an instance. Allegations of Tammanyisrai have been uttered against the Government for years past. At last .the Opposition was pinned down to certain specific infstances. -What is the result? A native member, has been adjudged guilty of impropriety in taking money for certain work in connection with land transactions, and he has been admonished by the Speaker of the House! Of course, we are told that the .committee of investigation was unreliable, because it comprised a'Government majority. But we venture to assert that any unprejudiced impartial tribunal must have returned a similar verdiet. The Government has been' cleared of all suspicion, and the Hine charges, having been disproved, and having indirectly provided the means for the Premier's' pergonal vindication, will largely assist the good fame of the Ministry. He wall be a brave man, indeed, who will again give voice to allegations of Tammanism or of reflections' upon the character and business probity of Sir Joseph Ward.—-Dannevirke Advocate.