The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1889. WAR IN THE CABINET.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1872, 30 March 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1889. WAR IN THE CABINET.

Theee are dissensions in the Cabinet. This is the latest item of news, which has originated in "Wellington, and from all accounts there are very good grounds for it. Mr Fisher is the author of the disagreement. He has distinguished himself similarly wherever his good fortune has taken him. When Mayor of Wellington he was continually in hot water; on the Government Insurance Board he was equally troublesome, and we believe that he was principally the cause of the Board being abolished. During the last session he drafted a question which was calculated to reflect on his colleague—Mr Mitchelsou—and got Mr Monk to put the question in the House. The affair created a bit of a sensation at the time, and now we learn that he has a fresh quarrel on hand, and tbat it will very likely terminate his Ministerial existence for the present. The "Wellington Evening Press of last Tuesday says :

" There is a serious dissension in the Ministry—a dissensiao, moreover, of s totally unprecedented character. For sometime past the Government hayo been eodeavouring to compel u strict compliance with the Uw of excise, and with that object have instituted a number of prosecutions agamst brewers for having sent out beer without paying the duty at the time, or for having oinilte.t to make the prescribed entries in thair books, or otherwise departed from tho spi'k of the law. Afior infinite pains and a huge outlay of money, the Government succeeded in obtaining a conviction und a penalty in spite of all attempts to take advantage of the multiplex teebniealiiies of one of the most difficult of all laws to enforce. Having thus, as thoy thought, made sure of their ground, tho Government proceeded to institute a large number of other prosecutions, so that tho brewers should be compelled to obey the law, and noue who had violated it should escape the penalty. At this point, however, a difference of opinion ar<jse among them, and as it happened the dissentient was the Minister at the head of tho Customs and Excise Department, the Hon. G. frjaher. Mr Fisher, it seems, did not hold with his colleagues that there should bo a prosecution in every case where there had been a departure from the law, but was willing to accede to an arrangement by which the amount of duty not paid at the time when, strictly speaking, it ought to have beeo paid, should be received at the Customs as a quittance in full. VYe are informed that one of those against whom an information had been laid applied to the Minister to be allowed to ' settle the case iD this way, and the duty was accepted. The others, however, do not appear to have known that they could thu3 avoid the annoyance and expense of a prosecution. Nor were the other Ministers informed of what had taken place. It only came out in fact when the prosecutions were about to be gone on with. Then arose the disagreement which is now causing such a flutter in the Ministerial dovecote. As a rule when a split in the Cabinet occurs there are two parties, some of the Ministers taking one side and some the other, but on this occasion Mr Fisher stands alone, all the other Ministers at Wellington being against him. The Premier, we are told, was especially incensed by his conduct, because he held not only that it was impolitic from an administrative point of view, but as tending to paralyse the efforts of the Government to enforce the excise law, and that it constituted an act of bad faith on the part of the Minister against his chief and colleague. How, the .Premier asked, could the Government proceed rib u Go- J vernment if one of their numbar employed 1 his power as head of an inportant department to frustrate the designs jointly determined on by them without lotting them know anything about it! There appeared to be no answer to that question, and as the four other Ministers—Mr Mitchelson, Mr Hislop, Mr Fergus, and Mr Richardson —held the same view of Mr Fisher'.) conduct as the Premier held, the natural conclusion was that Mr Fisher should resign."

The article goes on to say that Mr Fisher came down to Chriatchureh to consult Mr Stevens, who agreed with the Premier, and then went to Auckland to see Sir P. Whitaker, who has refused to give his decision yet. If Sir Frederick decides against Mr Fisher, he must then resign. That is all very well, but who can make him do so ? We do not think the Premier has the power to compel him to resign, and Mr Fisher is the wrong man to give up a snug billet so long as he can help it. The only way out of the difficulty is for the Premier to resign, and that must result in the resignation of all the Ministers. The Premier then can reconstruct the Ministry, by leaving Mr Fisher out of it. In all probability the Premier will not go to that length, and Mr Fisher will remain in his present position, with his hand against every one of his colleagues and the hands of all his colleagues against him. Mv Fisher will be quite happy so long as he can retain his position with its emoluments. We have heard of Cabinet dissensions before now. It is an old story. We

have not had a Government in New Zealand who have not been accused of | disagreeing, but no scandal so serious as that in which Mr Fisher is concerned has so far come to light. It gives evidence of the corrupt character of the present G-overnment, and stamps them as unfit to be trusted with the management of the affairs of the country.

CHINESE INVASION,

The Evening Post asserts that the Chinese of New Zealand have received a second circular from the Chinese G-overnment calling upon them not to enter into fresh business engagements, as they will soon be required to return to China. Some twelve months ago the Post asserted that they received a circular giving them three years' notice to return home, or that they would mo longer be regarded as subjects of the Emperor of China. The matter attracted a good deal of attention at the time, and it was alleged that the object the Chinese G-o----vernment had in view in thus recalling to their homes all Chinese subjects living in the Australian colonies was that China contemplated making a raid on the colonies. This is a very reasonable view to take of the matter; The Chinese would not hove been recalled to injure us. The Chinese Government knows very well we do not want Chinamen here, and they know also we would not shed a tear if I every one of them were to leave us. The obvious object in view is to recall' the Chinese previous to a raid being made, and from this we conclude that there is something in the wind. China has a population o£ 434,600,000 people, and could well afford to spare a million or two of them. We should not be afraid of double or quadruple our own number of Chinamen, but they could afford to pour shipload after shipload of them on us, till they became as thick as leaves on Yallambrosa. It is in the extraordinary number of Chinamen the danger lies, and it behoves U 3 to prepare for them, for if they once get a footing there is not the slightest chance for us. We should be com--1 pletely annihilated—blotted out altogether capitalists, money-lenders, large landowners, working-men, and all. Then those who- stand in the way of land settlement find of increasing the population would regret it, They would then realise how foolish their policy was in their grasping efforts to secure everything for themselves. There can be no doubt but that something like this is in contemplation by China, and the sooner we recognise it the better. We have never been afraid of .Russia or any other European power, but we certainly think we ought to prepare far China by putting our fortifications an the best possible footing for defensive purposes.