MR VAILE'S ADDRESS AT HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2289, 12 March 1887, Page 2

MR VAILE'S ADDRESS AT HAMILTON.

Sib,—As Mr Vaile, in his address in Hamilton, assumed a knowledge of the proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee which he did not possess, and has (unintentionally no doubt) made several mistatements, and drawn some erroneous conclusions, it becomes absolutely necessary that they should be corrected. In fairness to him, however, before I go further I may say that some of them are traceable to the faulty and somewhat involved report of the divisions which occurred in the committee when considering their report. In order that my readers may fully understand me, it will be necessary for them to have before them a copy of the committee's report which contains 10 paragraphs. Mr Vaile says, first, that I always voted in his favour except on one important occasion, so important, he says, as to vitally affect the result. This was when the question that the words "the effect of the proposed scheme is so much a matter of conjecture" should be retained in the report. Now, will it be believed by my readers that the committee considered this so very important that although it was carried, it was nevertheless allowed to drop out, and is not in the report at all. The fact of the matter was that when that division occurred we were considering—and it is here that the confusion in Mr Vaile's mind must have arisen, as it is not shown very clearly in the evidence which draft we were considering—a draft report made up from several others prepared separately by Mr Macandrew, Mr Richardson, Mr Hatch and myself, and we had been cutting out everything that overloaded the report or was expressed elsewhere, whether it happened to be right in itself or not. When the above question came up, I said, Oh ! cut it out if you like, but as someone called for a division, I voted for tho retention of the words as I could not have it recorded that I had affirmed that " the effect was not a matter of conjecture." Is there any one of my readers besides Mr Vaile who would assert that, the effect is not a matter of conjecture ? However, as I have said, the committee put so_ little value upon the sentence, that it was permitted to drop out of their final report altogether. Mr Vaile would also, perhaps, be surprised to hear that these objectionable words which he makes such a fuss about were first put in by Mr Macandrew and are now recorded in the evidence as part of the report which Mr Macandrew moved as an amendment, and which did not find a supporter. Moreover the purport of these words appears in several paragraphs of the final report which was carried without dissent from Major Atkinson, Messrs Macandrew, Gore, Walker, or myself. So much for the division which Mr Vaile says "lest them the position." Now then for the two last paragraphs containing the provision for a guarantee.

Mr Vaile says I had it added. Well this may be complimentary to my personal influence in the committee, but the facts are these : I had, in consultation with Mr Mitchelson, made several draft reports for consideration. In none of them was there this condition. They all wound up with simply recommending a trial on an isolated section, or, as an alternative, a commission of further enquiry. The latter Mr Vaile said would do no good, and the committee came to the same conclusion. Then it became apparent that a simple recommendation of a trial would not probably be carried in the committee, and if it were that it would inevitably be rejected by the House. The reason for this was that it would be futile to ask the country to consent to the benefit of extremely low rates being enjoyed, say, in Auckland, possibly at great cost to the rest of the colony —and that for a fixed period of years. Of course no short trial would have been conclusive. Moreover, we found that if the committee did recommend a trial without conditions, the Government contemplated trying it, if at all, upon the Picton section, where the whole passenger revenue is under £3000 a year. Would that have satisfied Mr Vaile? Hence the proviso which I drafted, and showed first to Mr Macandrew, who was positively delighted with it, and afterwards distinctly refused to vote for its withdrawal when asked to do so by Major Atkinson. The others who vvem voting with us also objected to its with drawal. Major Atkinson was the only one, who openly objected to the proviso, and I inserted it for the above reason. As regards the merits of the proviso, the committee being, as the report shows, not convinced that the scheme was sure to be a financial success, were of opinion that it was not unreasonable that those who had effected a saving by extremely low rates, and had their property increased in value, could afford to make up any deficiency which might arise. They also thought that such a condition would cause people to examine the proposed scheme more carefully and thoroughly, and also afford them an opportunity of giving a practical and substantial proof of their belief in its ultimate success.

After this explanation, surely it is not unfair of me to say that Mr Vaile ought to thank me for my action in the matter, rather than to throw odium upon me. All through this matter I have simply striven to do what I conceive to be my duty to my constituents, under such circumstances. That is, that whatever my private opinions might be upon some of the features of a scheme of this sort, and of the form which the agitation had assumed, their views and ideas should have fair play, should be fully ventilated, and should not be stifled by any improper means, or by the influence of red tape, or officialism. This duty I claim to have performed, and I feel certain Waikato will say that I have, no matter who may bark at my heels.

Then Mr Vaile says a great deal about the support accorded to him by Major Atkinson and others, and says that the former endorses his views. Now, surely any one can see who reads the report and the evidence that this is, to put it mildly, a great exaggeration. If the Major endorsed Mr Vaile's views, why did he not support and vote for Mr Maeandrew's motion to have the scheme adopted by the whole colony? Why did he vote for paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10, all of which express or imply more or less doubt upon the subject. No! I think Major Atkinson's sentiments may be fairly described as those of discontent with the present system, desire for a radical change, and a favourable disposition towards Mr Vaile's scheme, but no decided opinion that he had proved his case. The same I think, may be fairly said of those who voted with us.

With the merits generally of Mr Vaile's scheme, I don't intend at present to deal, although I may do so at a future date. There are, moreover, so many points upon which I agree with him, besides some upon which, I regret to say, I disagree with him, that it would be necessary to do so at considerable length. Meanwhile I have written as above, because I felt compelled to do so to prevent misunderstandings. In doing so I have also been constrained, in justice to myself, to depart from the usual rule as to revealing what is done in committees. I thought that in this c.ise it could do no harm, and would probably do a great deal of good. I cannot, however, conclude without saying,

in the friendliest manner possible, that it would bo greatly to the benefit of the cause for which ho labours so assiduously if Mr Vaile would endeavour to be a little more moderate in comment, more accurate in statement, and more just and reasonable in inference.—l am, yours truly, J. B. Whytk. Hamilton, March 11th, 1887.