The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1889. ANOTHER EXPOSURE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1937, 31 August 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1889. ANOTHER EXPOSURE.

The Wellington correspondent of the Lyttelton Times telegraphs as follows : Mr Fisher's questions re the prosecution or non-prosecution of Bing, Harris, and Co. raised a short but interesting and instructive debate to-day. In asking his question (having moved the adjournment of the House) Mr Fisher laid the foundation of his case by quoting Mr Rose’s telegram of February 2, 1889, reporting the seizure of Bing, Harris and Co.’s goods. This stated that the evidence in support of the seizure was “ strong and good,” but that he knew that Bing, Harris and Co. regarded the case as a desperate one, and that they would defend it “ at any cost,” Mr Fisher therounon wired “ prosecute without delay.” Then suddenly Mr M’Kellar, Secretary of the Customs, who had been at Oamaru on official business, appeared on the scene. Why he should suddenly appear in Christchurch, Mr Fisher could not understand ; but at once upon the Secretary’s appearance Mr Rose telegraphs to Mr Fisher, “ Hava not laid information as directed. Secretary (M’Kellar) will explain.” Mr M’Kellar explains to Mr Fisher, “ Have gone into the matter with Croyra Solicitor, who recommends that prosecution bs abamlf -ed.” Fisher answers to Mr Rose. Collector, “ v our first telegram te Bing, Harris and 00., your telegram of yeatprday, quite inconsistent, Explain

why you now think prosecution should be abandoned,” And to Mr M’Kollar, Mr Fisher telegraphed, “Why should prosecution of Bing, Harris be abandoned ? Clearer cases of attempted fraud never saw.’ Mr Fisher read to the House the invoices received from their Moras house to Bing, Harris and Co., and the entries passed by Bing, Harris and Co. at the Customs at Christchurch, Dunedin, and Wellington ; but he said that for every order he gave that the firm of Bing, Harris and Co. should be prosecuted for evasion of the Customs duties, a countermanding order came from an undisclosed source that his directions should not bo given effect to, Mr Fisher said he never could understand why his directions to prosecute Bing, Harris and Co., and other wealthy and fashionable firms, were never carried out, while other small people were prosecuted with remorseless rigour. It is now more than ever seen that the powers attached to the office of Commissioner of Customs are powers which may be wielded for political purposes. What the House generally appeared not to understand was why Mr Fisher’s instructions to the Collector at Christchurch were not given effect to, and the general verdict appeared to be that the Customs officials looked to Sir H. Atkinson and not to Mr Fisher for direction.

This to us is a terrible exposure. The inference to be drawn from it is that while Mr Fisher was instructing to prosecute Sir Harry Atkinson was privately issuing contrary instructions. It is ominous that Sir Harry Atkinson’s defence was lame in the extreme. It was that it wap Mr Fisher’s department, that Mr Fisher never complained to him, and that he knew nothing of it. This is not good enough. If the Premier went behind Mr Fisher’s back and inspired the officers of his department with disloyalty to their chief and then issued private instructions to these officers countermanding those of the chief, then indeed Sir Harry Atkinson has been guilty of outrageously disgraceful conduct. First, his conduct was treacherous to his colleague; second, it was calculated to demoralise the Civil Service; and third, it was subversive of Government by responsible Ministers. It is evident from it that Sir Harry Atkinson wanted to govern as an autocrat, making Mr Fisher a mere puppet for appearance sake. If in addition to this he prevented the prosecution of Bing, Harris and Co., and then compelled Mr Fisher to resign because he tried to screen a revenue defrauding brewer, his conduct can only be regarded as most corrupt. Mr Fisher has made the charge pretty plainly, and Sir Harry Atkinson has not answered him. We must conclude he cannot, and that consequently Mr Fisher is right. We have said before that probably the reason Mr Fisher had to leave the Ministry was because he was too honest for the others, and really we believe we were not far wrong.