THE HON. J. B. WHYTE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2381, 12 July 1892, Page 3

THE HON. J. B. WHYTE.

[N.Z._ Times]. Official information appears to have been given by the Auditor-General that the prosecutions arising out of the land scrip transactions are now at an end. This enables us to make some remarks on the subject. Hitherto we have refrained from discussing the position as it might be unfair to the persons charged. The facts are undeniable. They may be summarised as follows : —The colony has providad that scrip may be given to persons under the Volunteer Act and under the Forest Tree Planting Encouragement Statute. This scrip entitled the holders to select land, or, we might say, en+itled them to purchase land and pay for it with scrip. Parliament also j sanctioned the transfer of this scrip from ! the persons who had obtained it, and | these persons who became the transferees j could use it in the purchase of land under i certain conditions. It appears that the Hon. J. B. Whyte purchased scrip of both classes from various people. His j transactions seem to have been large. The scrip that he had so purchased in Bome instances he re-sold, and hi 3 purchasers bought land with the scrip they had thus become possessed of. Up to this point no fault could be found with Mr Whyte's action. He did what the law permitted him to do—he became a trafficker in scrip. But the evidence at the enquiries, both in Auckland and Wellington, disclosed a different class of transactions. It appears that he got the Receivers of Land Revenue both at Auckland and Wellington to give him in exchange for scrip j Government moneys that had beea paid by land purchasers for lard. The law did not permit this. The fact is, the law prohibits it, for a Receiver of Land Revenue as soon as he has received moneys from purchasers of land is bound to pay the money into the Government account. He has no power to dispose of that money. It does not belong to him, it belongs to the Crown. Nevertheless, Receivers of Land Revenue have illegally and improperly paid Mr Whyte Government moneys, and, strange to say, if the decision of the Resident Magistrate of Wellington be correct, the law is in this peculiar position : that Receivers of Land Revenue can dispose of Government moneys without resting under any criminal liability. We would like to know what a merchant would say if his clerk or employee could take the merchant's money which the clerk or employee was bound to pay into the merchant's bank account and give it to persons who had no right to receive it? We are afraid, if the Magistrate's exposition of the law is correct, that the Parliament of New Zealand has been exceedingly remiss in its duty in the past, and will be in the future if it do not provide that Receivers of Land Revenue are punishable for such a gross breach of duty, to call it by no other name. If it has happened that Receivers of Land Revenue have received monetary compensation for their assistance to Mr Whpte, then the law is in a still more unfortunate position. However, we must, we suppose, bow to the superior knowlege of the Resident Magistrate, and only regret that the law of New Zealand is so framed that a Receiver of Land Revenue can dispose of Crown moneys without even the sanction of his superior officer or by vote of Parli anient. We wonder what is the use of an Audit Department if this sort of thing can be permitted, for if the land revenue can be used for the purchase of scrip, why should not the Customs revenue also bo employed for the same purpose ? Wo do not see any distinction, and, further, we Buppo** a Customhouse omcer nngnt also give the Customs revenue in exchange for Mr Whyte's ssrip. We have said we must, we suppose, bow to th<3 Opinion of the Resident Mqgißtrate; but is this really the law of »ew Zealand? We are sure that very ||w people will agree with the Resident Magistrate, and we hope that this matter H -d furtne r probed. The conduct of tfte Receiver 3s indefensible, and if it is not criminal lie may thank the position Q! either the Now Zealand Statute fcnj gt

the knowledge of the Wellington Resident Magistrate. Here we leave the Receiver. Let us say one or two words about Mr Whyte. Did Mr Whyte know that he was acting contrary to law'/ The Resident Magistrate has anawerd the question; he has found that nothing can be said against Mr Whyte, nor about his conduct. And although there was strong inference, if not proof, of an agreement between him and the Receiver to get Crown moneys, which ought to have been paid into the bank and not withdrawn from it except under the usual operation of paying Government accounts ; yet the Resident Magistrate has allowed Mr Whyte to go free. If Mr Whyte did not know he was doing wrong, then we do not think he is a very suitable member for the Legislative Council. Surely he must see that it was improper, to use no harsher term, to receive from a Goverment officer Jovernment moneys that had neither been voted by Parliament for him, nor sanctioned by any responsible Minister of the Crown. What right had a Receiver of Land Revenue to pay him Government moneys ? Really the matter is beyond discussion.