The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 16. 1891. THE HUTCHESON CHARGES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2202, 16 May 1891, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MAY 16. 1891. THE HUTCHESON CHARGES.

Soke of our readers have, we doubt, not forgotten all about the Whitaker-Hutchison case. . It ig just close on twelve months since.it made its appearance in public, and it is not settled yet. In the beginning of the session of 1890 Mr Hutchison charged the Government with haring used public moneys to help the Bank of New Zealand through its difficulties, He said that Sir Frederick Whitaker (who had previously been chairman of the directors of the bank), Sir Harry Atkinson, and Mr Mitchelson were so deeply involved with the bank that they could not pay what they owed it, and that they manipulated the money of the colony improperly so as to assist it. Tbig passed unnoticed until some time afterwards the Wellington Press called on the Premier to explain the charge made against him. Goaded on in this manner the Premier wrote to Mr Hutchison asking whether be had made the charges, and Mr Hutchison replied that he bad. The matter was brought before Parliament, and Mr Mitchelson, as acting-Premier, moved for the appointment of a Committee to enquire into the charges, “especially the charges against certain members.” A whole week was spent in discussing this. The Ministry wanted to pack the Committee with their own friends, Mr Hutchison wanted to be fairly represented, and a moat unseemly squabble was the result. At last a Committee was agreed upon. Five members of it were Government supporters and four members of the Opposition. The Committee met, and Mr Hutchison demanded that the Bank of New Zealand should produce the banking accounts of Sir F. Whitaker, Sir H. Atkinson, and Mr Mr Mitchelson. The bank declined to do so without tha consent of the parties named. Sir F. Whitaker, Sir H. Atkinson, and Mr Mitchelson declined to allow their accounts to be examined, and the Committee reported the matter to the House, and asked for power to compel the bank to produce the accounts. The House decided in favor of the Government, and the Committee refused te go on with the enquiry. This left the case in an unsatisfactory position, and the Government decided to prosecute Mr Hutchison. Sir Frederick Whitaker served Mr Hutchison with a writ, and it was promised that the case would be settled before last election, so that the people could see who was right and who was wrong, but it is only now we find it emerging from the Court of Appeal, When the case came before the Court Mr Hutchison still insisted on the production of the bank’s accounts with the three Ministers referred to, and the Chief Justice ruled in his favor. ' The decision ®f the Chief Justice was appealed against, but now we find the Court of Appeal, in which all the Judges sat together, is in favor of Mr Hutchison. This, therefore, is the point for which j Mr Hutchison has contended all I

along. He wanted the Ministers’l private accounts produced; Parliament refused to sanction it, but now the Judges of the Supreme Court saj he has a perfect right to insist oa their production, and that they must be exhibited iu Court if the .case is to proeeed. Mr Hutchison has thus scored a great victory, in fact, he has got what *>e has fought for all through, and if this had been conceded, as it ought to have been long ago, the case would have been decided now. All we wish to say is that we think Mr Hutchison has been disgracefully treated. He made his speech in Par* liament, and be ought not to have been prosecute# and pnt to the expense he has'incurred in defending himself so far. The Government ought to bare supplied the necessary information to the Committee in the firs instance, and the case ought to have been tried by that tribunal, as is usual in such cases. . Instead of that the accused parties have resisted in* quiry in every possible way, but they have been bailed up at last by the Court of Appeal, and now they must do whan they ought to have doue in the first instance, that is, let the truth be known.