The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1890. THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2085, 14 August 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1890. THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

Me Awpeed Saundees has thrown a new light on the Bank of New Zealand dispute. He says the bank at one time endeavored to corrupt him and 20 other members by urging them to vote in a certain direction on the Bill brought before the House by Mr Driver, of Dunedin. Mr Driver says this is absolutely false, and threatens an action for libel Mr Driver knows very well that he cannot take an action for libel against a member of the House, so that is mere bounce. Really it appears to us that no one can any l 0 doubt that the Ministry are guilty or charges brought against them by Mr Hutson. First they denied that any Minister was to the bank, second they refused to allow the bank to exhibit its books, and now they are trying to pass the thing off by means of a trick. Mr Hutchison, it appears, corrected the proof of his speech before it appeared in Hansard, and now they want to make mountains out of that. In the name of common sense what has that to do with the question at all. If Mr Hutchison changed his speech twenty times it cannot alter the fact that certain charges were formulated, and that these charges have not been answered. The question the public want to know is, Has the Government been guilty of corruption as regards the bank, or has it not? Then we notice that the Christchurch Press has raked up a letter written by Sir Robert Stout in 1887. in which he deprecates running down the Bank of New Zealand, and says it would pay the colony to assist it if it were in danger. A great dsal of capital is made out of this to show that Sir Robert Stout would have assisted the bank had he been in power at the time. We are not in a position to say whether he would or would not, but if he had done so he would have come forward manfully and told the people of it. The crime of helping the bank would have been overlooked long ago if the Government had the manliness to say, “We did it. The bank was in danger; great interests were at stake ; its failure would have ruined f many and proved a disaster, and so as I to avoid suchterrible consequences we assisted it.” If the Government had done that they would have found hundreds of sympathisers, and we are not sure that we would not be amongst those who would applaud them; but instead of doing the thing openly they apparently have done it in a stealthy, surreptitious manner, and are now, when found out, trying to wriggle out of it by means which are as contemptible as they are impolitic and foolish from a tactical point of view. In our opinion the crime of trying to hide their actions is greater than the crime of having assisted the bank, because if they are capable of doing one dirly trick like this in a stealthy way they are capable of doing hundreds of the same kind, and are unworthy of confidence. But let them go on. Every step they have so far taken only shows their utter incompetency to conduct the public business. They are the most helpless set of men that ever filled public positions, and will doubtless be ousted at the general election.