The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1890. POLITICAL NOTES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2073, 17 July 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1890. POLITICAL NOTES.

On the 24th of last June in his place in Parliament Mr Hutcheson is reported in Hansard, page 45, to have said that he acted as barrister in a disputed title case between Maoris and “ a gentleman named Smith wh© lives in Otago, a gentleman of large means and considerable experience in Native transactions.” Tbe Court of Appeal decided against Mr Smith, and “ he decided not to appeal, but to put up with the loss which he said he had sustained, to pay cost of the Natives and to let it rest.” Mr Hutcheson continued that afterwards

he heard by the merest accident that Mr Smith was carrying the case to the Privy Council in the House of Lords, and "that his expenses were guaranteed by a Government cheque for £3OO. Mr Hutchison says that Mr Smith

had no intention of taking the case to the Privy Council, and that the Government guaranteed his expenses in doing so because there was a large number of speculators whose deeds were lodged with the Sank of New Zealand similarly situated. The in-, ference to be drawn from this is that in the interest® of the bank the Government paid £3OO to get the case tested in London. Mr Fergus, one of the Government, spoke after Mr Hutcheson, but said not a word in explanation of this. Then several followed each other and referred to it, and Mr Seddon asked the Bfatjye Minister could he deny it. Mr Mitchelson only said “ I will explain.” This occurs in Hansard, page 63. We

give the page of Hansard so that people if they like can see for them- ‘ whether our version is true or not Mt&r great badgering Mr Mitcheleori, « P»««. 59 H^?. rd ; condescends to S| f b ?‘ two judges of the Sup7 eQ3e one view of it and two judges other view. In the interests of as it was a case “involving so many interests,” he consulted “ the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General ” and “ we decided to deposit £3OO upon the condition that if after further consideration we thought it, unnecessary to go to the Privy Council, we could withdraw with an estimated loss of £20.” We are sorry we cannot give the speeches in full. Dr Fitchet speaking immediately afterwards, on page 71, says: —“ According to the admission of the Native Minister (Mr Mitchelson) the Bank of New Zealand held [ certain east coast lands under mortgage. The mortgages were practically valueless, for the bank could neither get possession nor sell.” Mr Mitcnelson : “ I did not say so.” Dr Fitchet: “The Native Minister said that these mortgages were in the bands of the Bank of New Zealand, and that the Natives refused to let the bank or anybody else touch them.” Mr Mitchelson did not reply, and Dr Fitchet said his explanation was “a palpable admission of the charge.” This is the same Mr Mitchelson who thinks it is discouraging to respectable men to enter polities to be badgered about like this, but most people will think that to fling money away in this manner is a matter that may fairly be inquired into. This is not one of the charges which the committee have to inquire into. This is a small matter. We have not received the Hansard with the definite charges in yet, but we think that if it, is much worse than to pay £3OO out of the public purse to help rich men to go to law with the Maoris it is bad enough. The Government wanted to run the railways by boy labor in order to have ,

money to squander in this way. It ought not be overlooked, too, that the Attorney-General is Sir Frederick Whitaker, who was chairman of the directors of the Bank of New Zealand. It is remarkable that Sir Harry Atkinson was not consulted. Mr Hutchison said in the course of the debate that if the Government provided funds for the Maoris also, to defend their side of the case, he would not have objected to it, but he could not see at all why public money should be provided to enable rich men to defeat the poor Maoris who had not the means of going to the Privy Council.

Who is Mr Mitehelson ? He is apparently a wealthy Auckland member. We say “ apparently wealthy.” because we do not know but that he may be one of the two members who are alleged to be indebeted to the tune of £60,000 to the Bank of New Zealand. He came into politics about ten years ago, and went for two or three sessions by the name of the “ Silent Member.” He never spoke in the House, for he has no speaking capabilities, but to the astonishment of everybody, in October 1883, be was taken into tbe Ministry, as Minister for Public Works, in the room of Mr W. W, Johnstone who bad resigned. The Auckland Herald on that occasion said his early training fitted him for the position of Minister for Public Works, as he had commenced life as “a carpenters apprentice,” and for sometime afterwards he was known as the carpenter’s apprentice better than as Mr Mitchelson. He continued in office until the Ministry were ousted in 1884«, and in the following year he distinguished himself by charging Sir Julius Vogel with corruption in tbe Starkie Land purchase transaction m Auckland. This was a piece of land which the Government bought in Auckland for erecting defence works on, and it was alleged that they paid too much for it. On the strength of this Mr Mitehelson made certain charges against Sir Julius Vogel, and the result was, that when the case was inquired into it was found that Sir Julius Vogel had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and M r Mitehelson had to apologise for the part he had taken in it. Now it has come to his own turn to have to defend himself against charges ten times worse that those he preferred against Sir Julius Vogel, and the question is whether he will come so well out of them. He is so far as we can learn, an extremely pleasant and inoffensive man, but is possessed of very little ability, and is no speaker, and everyone was astonished when he was taken into the Ministry. Had tbe Bank of New'Zealand anything to do with pushing him into it ?

Most people wbo do not thoroughly study politics are surprised at the desire of the Opposition to dissolve Parliament and hold an election immediately. Last year Mr Ballance moved a resolution to to the effect that Parliament should be dissolved, and in the course of the discussion Ministers said that if an election took place then it would interfere with the success of the Dunedin Exhibition. An indefinite arrangement was arrived at, to the effect that the elections should take place in April or May last, but this has not been done. The reasons the Opposition give are these: Ist. The number of members has been reduced by 21, and these have no right to sit m the House any longer. Also plural yoting has been abolished, and thus an entire change has taken place in the constitution. 2nd. The Premier is sick, and his colleagues are useless, and neither the House nor the country has any confidence in them. 3rd. The land administration of the Government is very mischievous, and they ought not to be allowed to carry it on for WQtfrp? 12 months. If they succeed lia keeping iff office till the end of the rm »m ir power till 8 « S r*°Tnnn must next Jane. _ roooHfs take_ place m - - Opposition result in a majority ot -, -v, QW members being returned it will 1 that the country has no confidence in the Government, and they have no right to continue their policy in direct opposition' to public opinion. 4th. They have only very few real supporters in the House, and the members vote for them only because they wanted to keep Mr Ballance out. Under such circumstances the Opposition say it would be right and proper to let the electors say who shall rule. The G-overnment, on the other hand, maintain that they have the confidence of the country, but it is remarkable they do not like to try it,