The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1886. POLITICAL SCANDAL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1533, 17 July 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1886. POLITICAL SCANDAL.

It is evident that nothing coaid disturb the equanimity of our representatives in Parliament at present. They seemed to have settled down together as peacefully as a brood of young doves. The fighting capabilities of the fierce and warlike Major Atkinson seem to have evaporated into thin air, leaving him a mild and gentle ally of the Colonial Treasurer ; while the lesser lights, who now can see no hope of getting into office, appear to have fallen into a state of perfect obliviousness of their duty. During the past week the pub ic were led to believe that a fearful storm was brewing, and it was even hinted that possibly the Government would not come oat of it unscathed. When it came, however, it did not amount to even a breeze ; it was, in fact, more like a dead calm. The matter to which we refer is the District Railways scandal, During the recess reports went abroad that Mr Steward, Member for Waimate, had received a large sura in payment for bis services in disposing of the debentures of the Waimate and Rotorua Railways fo the Government, and this has been made the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry. The Committee appointed to inquire into it brought in a report which not only affirmed the charges made against him, but also involved Sir Julius Yogel and Mr Peacock, M,8,R., and Chairman of the Rotorua Railway Board of Directors, The report, which we have already published, was to the effect that while Mr Steward had avoided any technical breach of the Disqualification Act, the transaction was calculated, to reflect on the integrity of any member of the House. It was, in fact, as much as to say “ he is morally guilty, but technically uot amenable to law.” The charge against Mr Steward was not that he received commission for services rendered, for that could not be an offence, but that in supporting the passage of the District Railways Purchasing Bill last session be was prompted by the prospect of being able to sell the debentures of the Company to the Government, and thus secure a profit to himself. To support this charge there is not, so far as wo have seen, one tittle of evidence. There is evidence that Mr Steward bad three years previously tried to sell the debentures to the Government Insurance Associa'i m and to the Bank of New ZealanJ, but failed ; also that that ho everted himself to secure the passing of the District Railways Purchasing Act, and that it was mainly through bis instrumentality that the Waimate line was included in the schedule to the Act. The head and front of Mr Steward’s offending consista in his exerting himself in getting this Act passed. It was not an offence to eel! the debentures, nor was there any wrong in his being paid for doing so, but to vote for the Bill through the corrupt motive of being able to secure a profit to himself would certainly be wrong, That he voted for (bo Bill,

therefore, constitutes his offence, and this loads to the question, which appears to have been overlooked by all who have criticised the mattei, Would Mr Steward have voted for the District Railways -Purchasing Bill even if he had uo such prospect as profit out of selling the debentures before him ? Was there no , local influence brought to bear upon him? Was not a section of his constituents interested in the passing of the Bi 1! ? and is it not like'y that he was actuated by a desire to serve them as their representative ? Why, then, should Mr Steward’s action be put down to corruption? Was it not as likely that he acted from a sense of responsibility to his constituents? We have never favored the District Railways Purchasing Act; we have always looked upon it as a most disgraceful piece of business, but to say that Mr rtteward voted for it because of the prospect of pecuniary benefit to himself appears to us to be unreasonable and unfair. The facts are that after the Bill had passed Mr Slee, Secretary to the Waimatejßailwajr Company, wrote to Mr Steward, reminding him that possibly under the altered circumstances he could sell the debentures 'o the Government Insurance Association, and winds op his letter as follows : “In the event of yourself and effecting this sale, the Directors will treat it as a matter of business. You may remember my speaking of it to you before. 1 perfectly remember what was said by me. Although the loss to the Company will be a heavy one, this will not preclude their seeing and acknowledging jour and —— services.” It would appear from this that at the time of passing the Act the debentures were not in the hands of Mr Steward for sale, and, moreover, it does not appear to have been anticipated at all that the Government would buy them. All that is in it is “ make another try to get the Government Insurance Association to buy them,” and Mr Steward did so. Ho offered the debentures to the Government Insurance Association, and Sir Julius Vogel, being Chairman of the institution, offered to buy them on behalf of the Government, If Mr Steward had sold the debentures to the Insurance Association there would have been nothing said about it, but as be sold them to the Government it was looked upon as corruption. He was not, according to the evidence, the first to approach the Government with them, but Sir Julius Vogel approached him. The fact that he offered the debentures to the Insurance Association proves that he had no knowledge of the intention of the Government to buy them when he voted for the Act, and this, it appears to’us, exonerates him from all blame. The tenor of the criticism to which he has been subjected insinuates that be ought not to have sold them to the Government. This is nonsense. His business was to sell to the highest bidder, and we think, too, that very few of the Committee which criticised him so severely would have thrown £1035 over their shoulders—that is the amount Mr Steward received in commission. There cannot be the slightest doubt but that it. was bis position as a member of Parliament gave Mr Steward facility to earn this money, but the probabilities are that bis action in getting the District Railways Purchasing Bill passed was not influenced by this, and, in the absence of proof, besought to get the benefit of the doubt. The Committee, however, brought him in morally guilty, and, objectionable as their action in doing so was, their subseqnent conduct was more so. When the subject was brought up last Wednesday evening not one of them had the courage to say one word in defence of the report. They crouched, like whipped curs, in their seats, and never opened their lips to defend the action they had taken. Within our knowledge nothing of a more cowardly nature has occurred in politics. In a private room > the Committee behaved like blustering bullies, but when they came out in public, and found their action generally condemned, they had not the moral courage to utter one word in defiance of I what they had done. It is said that it was not at Mr Steward they were aiming, and that the object in view was to bring odium on the Colonial Treasurer. This onjy. makes their action more despicable. If itmey could not get at Sir Julius Vogel in any other way than by victimising Mr Steward they ought to have left him alone. They supposed that it was Sir Julius Vogel who was hinted at in the blanks in Mr Slee’s letter, and presumed that he received a share of the commission on the sale of the debentures, but Mr Stewart asserted that no one received any commission except himself. We hare not space for a fuller criticism of the transaction. There is nothing very pleasant in it, there could be nothing very creditable associated in any way with the purchase of the district railways, but to cur mind the most cowardly and despicable part of it is that which was played by the Committee.