‘The First Joint in the Tail of a Black Budget’[1] : G.V. Shannon as New Zealand Customs Expert after the 1888 Tariff Act[2]

Richard and Marianne Davis, University of Tasmania

During the depressed 1880s much of the New Zealand Government’s revenue derived from the Customs. Free trade versus a protective tariff to promote New Zealand industry and employment was a key issue dividing politicians at a time when party politics hardly existed. Sir Harry Atkinson is often depicted as Premier in a ‘continuous’ or ‘scarecrow’ ministry devoted to the interests of the landed oligarchs, rather than the poorer classes. But his 1888 Tariff Act incensed conservative supporters, demanding free trade and retrenchment to the bone in the current depression. Atkinson argued that the higher tariff was necessary to maintain public finance, while also according some protection to New Zealand industry. W.P. Reeves, a leading member of Atkinson’s opposition, who voted for the tariff, agreed: ‘the Dominion’s treasurer gets his revenue while, sheltered by the fiscal hedge, certain manufactures steadily grow up.’[3] But the ‘Black Budget’[4] of 1888 split Atkinson’s followers and was carried only with the assistance of adversaries like Reeves. The controversy helped this Opposition to electoral victory in 1890 under John Ballance as part of a ‘seismic shift’ in New Zealand political culture.[5] The period of Liberal reform 1891 to 1906, giving New Zealand an international reputation as a social laboratory, was thus partly a consequence of the 1888 tariff.[6 ]

The political emphasis on late 19th century tariff policy, by historians such as Sir Keith Sinclair, appears of little interest since the removal New Zealand’s financial controls a century later. But the tariff of 1888 had consequences behind the more obviously political. After the rhetoric and division of parliamentary debate, new Customs schedules were required for enforcement by Collectors at the numerous New Zealand ports: Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Invercargill, Nelson, Napier, New Plymouth, and others. Could clear and consistent guidelines be established, not easily evaded by importers, themselves facing depression? Would the Government itself have the nerve to implement unpopular new duties on powerful businesses with potential political clout? The task required a Customs expert, over and above the regular Departmental bureaucracy. Such an office had been considered by a previous government, but not implemented, though at least one job seeker had offered his services in this capacity.[7]

The 1888 Commissioner of Trade and Customs, or Minister for Customs as the position was officially described in 1906, was George Fisher. Originally a journalist and of Irish birth, Fisher, also Minister for Education, possessed charisma in Wellington as ‘the People’s George’,[8] and had been mayor. He supported Atkinson on the tariff, though accused of leaving most of the work to his Premier.[9] Part of an informal network of influential Irishmen, who included significant figures such as Sir George Maurice O’Rourke, John Ballance and the lawyer-politician Sir Patrick Buckley, Fisher recommended a personal friend, George Vance Shannon (1842-1920), for the expert position.

Born in Antrim, not far from John Ballance’s birthplace, in 1842, Shannon emigrated to Nelson in 1865 and worked for the importing firm of Nathan Edwards as a commercial traveller up and down the West Coast and Taranaki. In 1874 Shannon joined with another Northern Irishman, John S.M. Thompson, a draper in Greymouth whose family had built up a prosperous foundry business in Castlemaine, Victoria. The two Irishmen established the warehouse firm of Thompson, Shannon and Co. in Wellington. Between 1874 and 1887 they moved from importing draperies to manufacturing and finally to retail at wholsesale prices in their premises at Panama Street, Wellington. Branches had been established in other centres[10] and a considerable workforce included 140 women and 16 cutters and pressers in their Wellington factory. Thompson and Shannon paralleled the development of other New Zealand soft goods firms such as Ross and Glendinning, Kirkcaldie and Stains, James Smith, Bing Harris, Sargoods, Macky, Logan and Steen, and Hallenstein. Several of their competitors had been forced to close down in the Depression. Hard times encouraged innovations, such as displays directed at middle class ladies and separate departments for menswear and tailoring, which some writers have attributed to a later age.[11] At one stage Thompson and Shannon were saved from an inability to meet their overseas commitments by the efforts of their agents, Messrs Geard in London.[12] An abortive attempt by the New Zealand Government of 1885 to raise customs duties was vigorously opposed by Thompson and Shannon on the ground that it would compel them to sack staff.[13] The firm does not appear to have been in the top rank of importers able to secure the largest discounts from European exporters. In New Zealand in the late 1880s concern was voiced by another Irishman, the Rev Rutherford Waddell, of Dunedin, and Royal Commissions in 1878, 1888 and 1889, over sweating in ‘a cut-throat business operation’ of drapery manufacture.[14] On one occasion, Thompson and Shannon were fined for working their female employees after 6 p.m., but Shannon’s disclaimer of responsibility was accepted.[15] A devastating fire in 1887[16] may have helped to persuade Shannon to liquidate the partnership in 1888[17] and leave Thompson on his own. In 1890 Thompson sold his business to Bendix Hallenstein’s DIC[18] and departed for his family’s iron foundry in Castlemaine, Victoria.[19]

Shannon, like many other drapers, had already acquired land, in his case at Stanway in the Rangitiki. Still in his forties he looked to combining this property with a political career which he hoped would lead to parliament and the cabinet. Thompson and Shannon had maintained high public profiles in Wellington; both were JPs. Thompson served on the City Council and chaired a number of organisations, while Shannon had been prominent as a Volunteer and Militia Officer, a member of the Education Board and as a director of the Wellington-Manawatu Railway. The town of Shannon commemorated this directorship. A successful political career seemed to beckon.

Before Shannon could contest the local seat of Rangitikei, he received a telegram on the new Tariff Act from James S. McKellar, the recently appointed Secretary of the Customs Department: ‘Want expert opinion for exhaustive list of articles clarified under several items tariff affecting soft goods trade premier has named you and authorised fair remuneration matter urgent will you undertake copy tariff by mail.’[20]

Shannon hurriedly returned to Wellington and duly sat down in his Club on Monday 30 July to work away at the tariff schedules, finishing them on Friday 3 August. McKellar, and the Premier, Atkinson, were almost as much impressed with Shannon as his friend, George Fisher, the Commissioner, who had clearly nominated him. According to Shannon, the House of Representatives when ‘introducing its first protective tariff made such a muddle of it that the Officers of Customs could not properly interpret it for duty collecting purposes’. Drapery posed particular problems. After Shannon’s classification, Atkinson was ‘so well satisfied that he offered him’ an inspectorship of customs.[21] The need to administer new schedules of a mind-numbing complexity in draperies, warranted a permanent expert to check up on fraud, underpayment and inconsistency. As the Wellington Evening Press, a hostile pro-free trade paper pointed out, importers begged for a mesne duty of 17 or 18%, while protectionists demanded 25% across the board. A clumsy compromise had established four categories, certain to cause endless dispute, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%.[22]

Backed by the newspapers, importers objected, for example, that orders for muslin handkerchiefs had already been transmitted on the assumption that they were 10% cotton piece goods, not 20% fancy dress muslin. Shannon, however, denied that such overseas orders had already been made, arguing that consumers would have to pay both the duty and an additional profit to the importer. ‘It is to be regretted that the Customs Duties Act is so wide in interpretation had I only seen you before it was passed, half a dozen lines would have insured all your requirements, at the same time Drapery covering everything you have so classed’. As for the press, he himself ‘often oiled the wheels of the printing machine on more subjects than Tariffs’.

Writing to McKellar in late August, when he had gone back to Stanway, Shannon informed the Secretary of Customs that his contacts in the soft goods trade were determined to resist the new tariff. While importers would make difficulties for McKellar and try to pressurise him into tariff reductions through legal action, Shannon was sure that they would accept it in the end. Talking to John Moore Richardson of Wilson and Richardson, a leading Wellington importer, he heard that the latter ‘would not spend time and money for other people’s benefit, or in what might prove unsuccessful actions.’ Shannon

met several influential drapery importers and they do not disguise their intention to use every method consistent with “not being found out” to avoid paying “more duty than can be helped” I could name several houses who intend instructing their London offices how to invoice goods towards this end, their sentiments were well expressed by the father of the Hon John Perceval, [Peacock] MLC, many years ago to Capt Ruff collector of Customs at Nelson– “You watch me I’ll watch you and I’ll have you if I can” old Perceval had him many a time but at last the collector watched him more closely, and had him to the tune of a large set of Sydney cedar drawers filled with silks and a heavy fine.[23]

Thus battle was to be joined. The Premier was most amused by the story of Capt. Ruff.[24] Shannon was nevertheless skating on thin ice when, unknown to his former colleagues and rivals in the trade, he was reporting their attitudes and plans to the Government. In letters to both McKellar and Fisher, Shannon demonstrated his concern to catch out fraudulent former competitors.[25] Without any official position he was providing gratuitous advice to the premier. He advised by telegram to reject a proposition of importers Bing Harris and Richardson as it would deplete the revenue by £20,000 per annum.[26 ] In his correspondence at this time, Shannon claimed to know of important companies which practised deliberate dishonesty, but was reluctant to name them in a letter.[27] It is likely that Bing, Harris was one of these. A considerable hostility was to develop between Shannon and the firm which only a year earlier had given Thompson and Shannon 5% discounts[28] and whose Christchurch premises were also on Lichfield Street.

Shannon’s advice worried Atkinson and McKellar as the Premier was accepting in parliament, the demand of deputations that many fabrics could be passed as cotton piece goods at the minimal 10% and that ‘shirtings’ were to be accepted as low duty calicoes. Even the Secretary himself was at sea, desperately asking Shannon, ‘Will you please set me straight – cotton goods and shirtings and Galatea checks and stripes, shirtings and Galateas dress stuffs.’[29]

Meanwhile the Premier publicly announced the forthcoming appointment of a Customs Expert. There were immediate expressions of interest. Could the invaluable Shannon be persuaded to take the job? Replying to McKellar, Shannon first explained the mysteries of shirtings. He reaffirmed his estimate that £20,000 would be lost if suggested concessions were granted; importers like Richardson assured him that they intended to force every item into a lower category. Shannon revealed his own intentions by pointing out that, while he was always willing to give advice, he could do little by letter but would need to see the fabrics for himself in Wellington.

The difficulty you have respecting Galateas used for shirtings and those used for dresses I could only decide on examination and could not give a description in writing that would enable your officers to distinguish the difference or I would be pleased to do so this is one of the numerous cases of close similarity that will arise under the new Tariff which will require vigilance and knowledge to ensure the payment of proper duty.

It is in all these cases your expert would be valuable while attending at the same time to prevention of fraud in the larger manipulation of importers.

Nor could Atkinson afford to take his time over the appointment of the Expert. Shannon had previously suggested that importers would not be able to organise bogus invoices until the rates were settled. They were now in place.[30]

Shannon was frank when writing to his good mate George Fisher. Indeed, Fisher, hinting of drinking sessions in the past, and deprecating the need for Shannon to argue his case with him,[31] told Shannon, ‘You are quite right – I do stick to my friends.’[32] Fisher was concerned that he could not simply appoint Shannon Customs Expert on his own authority as Commissioner, and annoyed that an opponent was helping another candidate to lobby the Premier for the post. For his part, Shannon left the matter entirely in Fisher’s hands, having ‘no doubt you will be able to give me the appointment I would not for a moment think of asking you to do so if I did not feel confident that I could do you credit in it and certain no man in the colony can fill the position better and few as well’.[33] Shannon happily gave Fisher some forthwright comments on several of the other seven applicants for the position.[34]

Assured of Fisher’s support, Shannon bid very high for the Expert position, nominating £1,500 per annum, plus travelling expenses. This was an impossible demand. The Atkinson Government was slashing positions and salaries across the board. Indeed, free trade and ruthless retrenchment, not increased tariff protection and additional customs revenue, was the conservative antidote to depression. Cabinet ministers, judges and permanent public service heads then received £800 per annum. Even McKellar’s salary had been cut to £750. As the sequel demonstrated, Atkinson could never have justified such remuneration to the cabinet, parliament or the country. Yet Shannon was insistent that his appointment would save the colonial revenue many times his required salary. He showed no false modesty in reciting his thirty years of business experience, 24 importing, 10 in general merchanting and drapery, and 14 in drapery in Wellington. In response to an article by the editor, E.T. Gillon, speculating in the Evening Post on the all-round needs of the Customs Department, Shannon pointed out that his knowledge was not confined to soft goods,

I believe no man in the colony has had a more varied experience than myself during the ten years I managed the large Imperial business of N. Edwards & Co of Nelson and the West Coast, I identified and sold wholesale almost everything that ever came into the colony - Cargos of Sugar - Tea and Adelaide flour - Pianos, American organs, Scotch Oatmeal, Belfast bacon, Galv[anised] Iron & sluice forks, Rat traps and feeding Bottles, Wines and Spirits, tobacco and fancy goods, Holloway Pills & [illegible] as well as pain killer for diggers to drink when they ran short of Whiskey.

Lesser men could easily be obtained for £300 a year, but an expert from Melbourne would cost £500 more than Shannon needed. According to Shannon, under William Seed, the highly regarded Secretary of Customs, 1866-87, ‘the percentage for collection was very low, as compared with other countries. I should say that it was 'cheap and loose.' More than six years earlier Shannon had advised Seed to use experts in all customs houses, but nothing had been done. Agreeing with Gillon that an expert stationed in Wellington would be pointless, Shannon reminded Fisher that ‘I told both you and Sir Harry that whoever you appoint must be continually on the move from one Port to the other during 365 days of the year, or he will be useless.’ [35] Emily, Shannon’s long-suffering and ailing wife, doubtless hoping retirement from Thompson and Shannon meant a settled existence in the country, was prevailed upon to acquiesce in her husband’s projected extensive travel.[36]

Unlike an external import, Shannon claimed he would not be a permanent public servant. His political ambitions, that might end in a ministry, made him content with a temporary appointment, perhaps for five years, when he could train the local Collectors as experts. Shannon nevertheless revealed that ‘putting the stopper on some of those beggars that I could name who have grown wealthy with the aid of the customs (while men like James Smith, Thompson and myself who have worked hard and paid full duties have lost money) would give me the greatest pleasure.’[37] To McKellar, Shannon denounced the importers who argued that Flannelettes for shirt making should be free of duty as ‘one of the most “bare-faced try on’s” I ever heard of these people are worth a little attention from the Customs.’[38]

While Atkinson, Fisher and McKellar, the latter having recently succeeded the well-liked Seed, supported Shannon’s appointment, his terms were ridiculously high. Even Fisher, who ostensibly endorsed Shannon against McKellar’s bureaucratic reluctance to accept his ‘high screw’, advised his friend not to ‘let the thing slip through your fingers, no matter if they offered you £500. After the assessor billet I’d have it at any cost, if I were you.’[39] Finally, a compromise was arranged on 20 October at a meeting with Fisher, Atkinson and McKellar. The latter wrote a letter of appointment, signed by Fisher as Commissioner.[40] Shannon agreed to a mere £800, but with the stipulation that he would be paid an allowance of 30s a day ‘whilst travelling on public service “including your stay in Wellington”’, plus one quarter of all nett proceeds, seizures and penalties obtained through his action. This Shannon calculated would amount to not far short of his original demand, especially when the travelling component was interpreted as every day of the year, wherever he was. He was subordinated only to the Commissioner, now Fisher, and the Secretary of Customs, McKellar, whose salary was less than his own. The appointment ran only from November 1888 to June 1889, but Fisher’s official letter included a Government undertaking ‘to use their best endeavours’ to obtain parliamentary sanction for three years. The leader of the Opposition, John Ballance, for whom Shannon had intended to stand at the next election, was sounded out by Shannon himself and probably the Government. Ballance agreed to the arrangement, telling Shannon that he could do more important work as Customs Expert than in parliament.[41] Officially, Shannon won the position because he had greater all-round experience than any of the other candidates.[42]

To give Shannon a head start, before opponents knew he was pursuing fraud, his appointment was not publicised for the month of November. McKellar, sent him on his first trip to Dunedin, then the country’s busiest port, to check up on the Aorangi. ‘I shall keep your reports “confidential” to prevent letters being opened by the Chief Clerk address me by name and write “private” across the seal.’[43] A few days later McKellar ordered Shannon to Auckland to inspect the Examiner, but allowed time for Shannon to visit Invercargill, if he considered it necessary. McKellar was delighted when Shannon suggested that Flannelettes could be cut into lengths to make them eligible for reduced duty as shirtings and invited him to define the requisite lengths: ‘a good beginning – go on and prosper!’[44] Shannon quickly found that Gavin Gibson and Co. of Christchurch, and Lightbrands in Auckland had passed false invoices.[45] McKellar and Atkinson were both ‘pleased with success’.[46]

When Shannon’s cover was eventually blown newspapers evoked dramatic tales of surreptitious sleuthing. According to E.T. Gillon’s Evening Post, Shannon adopted the best traditions of Scotland Yard. ‘We do not know whether he disguised himself as detectives generally do in novels and on the stage, with wig, false beard, etc., but he went from port to port in a most unostentatious and unofficial manner, timing his arrival at each so as to be there when a direct steamer with large consignments arrived.’ He kept as clear, said the Evening Post, of the Customs Department, ‘as if he had himself been engaged in running contraband goods’. In his fashionable hotel waiters were amazed by the amount of correspondence which came and went by special courier. The importers had no knowledge of what was going on until rudely awakened by the sudden efficiency of the Customs in altering long-standing classifications, challenging the authenticity of invoices and disallowing discounts.[47] The less sympathetic Wellington Evening Press, edited by the rabid free trader, Edward Wakefield, who was ‘unduly combative and allowed his diatribes to get out of hand,’[48] compared Shannon with Emile Gaboriau’s amateur detective Piere Tabaret [49] and Dickens’ Inspector Witchem in Household Words. The secret ‘Expert’ went on a holiday tour shaking hands with the villains whom he had come to expose.[50]

In early December 1888, when Shannon’s appointment on a salary of £800 per annum was finally announced, a ‘storm’ of protest erupted. The New Zealand Times, hitherto supportive of Shannon, thought the appointment ‘wholly unjustifiable’. Correspondents condemned the ‘reckless extravagance’ of the stipend, claiming, like many others, that just as effective men could be obtained for £200. ‘Rags’ denounced Fisher’s incompetence in the Tariff debate and linked it with the pitchforking of Shannon ‘into a billet that has evidently been created for him.’[51] This was not the only suggestion that Shannon’s inside running for the Expert post was widely known. The Otago Daily Times argued that Commissioner Fisher prsumably was 'primarily responsible’ for the appointment.[52] Two papers, the Auckland Star and Wakefield’s Evening Press were particularly scathing. The Star had nothing against Shannon personally, but the appointment was ‘one of the most unblushing and scandalous political jobs that has been attempted by any Ministry for many years past, and one for which the Cabinet ought to be ignominiously expelled from office.’[53] The Press was more personal. To implement his ‘Black’ protectionist budget, Atkinson had gone behind the backs of co-operative importers and engaged an ‘irresponsible person’, Thompson’s ‘counting-house partner’, from ‘an obscure part of Rangitikei ... A more gross insult to those gentlemen [importers] was never offered.’ The Premier was saying ‘You are a parcel of rogues, I don’t trust you an instant. I will find one who has left the trade, and I will act on the proverb, “set a thief to catch a thief,” and by my own traps I will catch you.’ The Evening Press marvelled that anyone could be found ‘to do this very dirty work’.[54]

Before the publication of the article,[55] Shannon had reportedly visited the Evening Press office to put his case, occasioning another diatribe, ‘Mr. Shannon gives himself Away.’ To the Press, Shannon apparently admitted that he had initially asked for £1000 per annum, but had dropped his demands to assist a Government afraid of the ‘howls’ that the larger income would cause. He revealed the tactic of using the first month travelling incog to uncover frauds and claimed to have discovered systematic smuggling even among firms of the highest standing. The Premier had been shocked when Shannon showed him a fraudulent invoice, but the perpetrator had been let off with a caution. Shannon intended to descend suddenly on ports where large shipments of soft goods were expected. He recognised everyone’s handwriting and ‘and from the secret knowledge gained behind the scenes, before his appointment was published, he knows exactly how the oracle is worked.’ He disdained the expected attacks from newspapers as he was ‘pretty thick-skinned’ and keen to earn his salary, already covered by his exposures, instead of sitting on his posterior like a civil servant.[56]

The reported interview, sufficiently close to Shannon’s own correspondence with the authorities, was clearly calculated to create strong opposition. The Evening Press claimed that it had discouraged Shannon’s confidences, unwilling ‘to take an unfair advantage of one in a fussy condition of mind.’ Shannon, it asserted, even before the story was published, sought the Evening Press agent in Christchurch and insisted on him telegraphing further revelations confirming the original story.[57] There is no mention of this in Shannon’s diary and his own account denounces the revelation of a confidential discussion. He left Christchurch on 6 December for Dunedin, Invercargill and Riversdale, where he stayed in the company of Mr and Mrs Fisher. From Dunedin on 13 December he telegraphed McKellar, ‘re Wakefield’, obviously on the hostile articles in the Evening Press.

Before the newspaper articles, the Christchurch soft goods importers had met, somewhat uncertainly, to discuss Shannon’s position. Rather than an outright condemnation of Shannon’s appointment, they decided to lobby the Premier, expected shortly from Dunedin. Their concern was the inefficiency of a high paid expert in Wellington, instead of less expensive authorities in the regional ports ensuring that customs consistency was maintained. They disclaimed any hostility to the tariff which would be passed on to consumers, ignoring the likelihood that higher prices would reduce sales. Their Wellington counterparts, at a meeting on the day the Shannon interview was cited in the Evening Press, condemned the appointment of Shannon for ‘not having the confidence of the trade’.[58]

Gillon’s Evening Post, opposed to the tariff, ridiculed this claim. A detective who possessed the confidence of the trade would be useless.[59] A correspondent in the Auckland New Zealand Herald, suggested that every prisoner in Mount Eden Gaol ‘bitterly resents the uncalled-for action of the police in interfering with a man’s right as a free citizen.’[60] The Evening Post revealed that ‘there are some outside people who assert that the sore is that Mr. Shannon, having once himself been fully in the confidence of the trade, has now shared those confidences with the enemy.’ The Southland News, also considered that Shannon may have originally displeased his trade rivals, but ‘the officer who has to check their invoices and say whether they are genuine or cooked, does not need to enjoy their confidence’, so long as he has severed his own business connections.[61] The Otago Daily Times , edited by Richard Twopenny, educated in England, France and Germany,[62] was balanced in its assessment. Opinion in the trade, it argued, was naturally hostile to Shannon, while outsiders approved of an appointment but were bemused by the choice of Shannon and the size of his salary. Nevertheless, ‘It is asserted, however, on apparently good authority, that a large saving to the revenue has already been effected through Mr. Shannon, who has already been at work for a month past under the Parliamentary vote for detecting frauds on the customs. This is now no secret.’[63] Most supportive was Shannon’s local Rangitikei Advocate, edited by ‘a brilliant young Australian journalist’, John C.F. A’Hearne,[64] which defended, in virtually the Expert’s own words, the appointment in redressing the ‘monstrous wrong’ of widespread customs evasion worth £20,000 per annum in softgoods alone. The ‘swindling hypocrites’ who defrauded the Government and grievously hurt honest traders were often people ‘occupying high positions’ and magnates ‘famed as patterns of the most refined respectability.’ These corresponded to cases in other protectionist colonies such as Victoria, ‘where at various times heavy frauds have been brought to light.’ In Victoria, indeed, importers had barred their doors to Customs inspectors and got away with it.[65] The Evening Press’s contention ‘that the Government should trust to the honour of the merchants is supremely ridiculous. Why not abolish the Custom-house at once, and allow every importer to pay his duties just as honour dictated to him?’ The Advocate agreed with the Evening Post that well paid officers would be less easily corrupted.[66]

Despite these positive views, nearly all the major soft goods firms – Sargood and Son and Ewan, Black, Beattie and Co., Bing, Harris and Co., Ross and Glendinning, James Smith of Te Aro House, Kirkcaldie and Stains, Wilson and Richardson, Macky, Logan and Steen, Bendix Hallenstein – with the notable exception of Thompson and Co., recently fined for having unstamped measures - protested.[67] Some had representation from several centres. Auckland was less passionate than the more southerly cities, but sent its protest in late December 1888.[68]

There were, the merchants claimed, virtually no frauds in the business; soft goods importers had always co-operated fully with Customs and could eliminate any problems as they arose by quiet negotiation. The very complexities of the new tariff could be worked out, free of charge for the Government, by importers themselves. Shannon’s views in the reported interview with the Evening Press were strongly resisted. Apart from ad hominem attacks on Shannon and outrage at the size of his salary, substantive criticism by the trade was based on the debatable assumption that self-regulation with Government endorsement was more efficient than independent Government control.

Refutation fell to the Premier, Atkinson, who met in Dunedin on the morning of 17 December a softgoods importer’s deputation, consisting of representatives of Sargoods (J. Ross), Bing, Harris (James Wilson its national manager), Ross and Glendining (R. Glendining and G.R. Hercus), Stewart and Macdonald of Glasgow (J. Gunn), Brown, Ewing (T. Brown) and several other companies . The importers had earlier presented a long document attacking the appointment of Shannon as Customs ‘referee’ and his inconsistent decisions since appointment. They harked back to the better days, no doubt under Secretary Seed, when warehousemen themselves assisted in the assessing and collecting of duties, unlike ‘the frequent and anomalous and vexatious decisions’ of the current Commissioner ‘based principally upon Mr. Shannon’s representations.’ Not only was the appointment of such an expert unecessary, but the choice of Shannon in whom the trade had no confidence was unfortunate. His interview with the EveningPress[69] had revealed his gratuitous work for the Government ‘merely as an amusement’. To this was attributed recent erratic decisions by the Commissioner. They even complained that the failure to prosecute the bogus invoice shown to the Premier breached the Act. Shannon, moreover, could know nothing about the vexed issue of discounts, as his former firm traded only in a small way in England and was thus excluded from such incentives to large importers. The deputation also ridiculed the decision, over which McKellar had enthused, requiring Flannelettes to be cut into seven-foot lengths to pass free as shirtings. Finally, the importers demanded Government repudiation of Shannon’s alleged claim that systematic smuggling existed. The names of ‘honourable men, who, during nearly the whole period of the history of the colony, have taken no inconsiderable part in building up its commerce and its industries’, must be cleared from such a ‘wanton attack’.

Sir Harry Atkinson, claiming that he had had no time to read the statement carefully, but who was obviously briefed by Shannon, in Dunedin at the time but not at the meeting, took the document paragraph by paragraph. On the infamous interview, he had been assured by Shannon that the statements attributed to him were not true and could only have been written by one person. Shannon had no authority to deny the reports; he the Premier had such authority but always refused to contradict hostile statements in the papers; these must be taken with a grain of salt. When Glendining tried to probe further, the Premier rebuked him, ‘Leave it alone – that’s what I do; and if you are wise you will do the same.’ The Premier refused to consider rumours, but if they had substantial information he would look into them. As for the fraudulent invoice, the story was garbled; a small boot trader had supplied an improper invoice which did not necessitate prosecution. Shannon was doing a good job, but his position was merely advisory and temporary. It might last a little longer than a year.

The importers vigorously repudiated Atkinson’s claim that they must recognise the existence of ‘black sheep among businessmen’. The Premier ironically declared himself ‘glad to hear it; but were there no salted or double invoices presented to Customs.’ Like importers, the Government wished to ensure uniformity in the application of the tariff. On the vexed issue of discounts, the Premier told the softgoods men they would have to accept that large importers lost the Customs advantage of special discounts not available to smaller competitors. Atkinson, however, suggested that the length of the seven-yard shirtings passing free might be altered,[70] but that the provision had been made for the convenience of the trade. He agreed to receive recommendations from a conference of importers.

According to the Evening Post, Atkinson ‘dealt somewhat roughly with the delegation’ and ‘had much the best of the argument’.[71] The Christchurch importers, introduced by the moderate C. P. Hulbert, of D. Clarkson and Sons, with an address by Mr Beattie[72] of Black, Beattie and Co., in lower key, accepted the Expert’s appointment and disclaimed antagonism to Shannon. The address recommended a uniform tariff of 10% and publication of a final alphabetical catalogue, jointly drawn up by Customs and importers, providing detailed rates of duty. This, it was claimed, would make the Expert redundant.[73] Atkinson replied in similar vein to his discussion in Dunedin, and the Christchurch Press believed the matter had ended satisfactorily.[74] When Auckland importers also protested against the aspersions Shannon was believed to have cast on their honesty, the Department referred simply to the answer already given to their Dunedin counterparts. The reply added, tongue in cheek, that the papers had not impaired the Government’s confidence ‘in the commercial integrity of the leading firms engaged in the soft-goods business in this colony.’[75]

Although Atkinson appeared solidly behind Shannon, division in Government ranks had already occurred. Fisher, though Commissioner, had kept away from the interviews with the Premier in Dunedin and Christchurch. It was one thing to inveigh against Customs fraud, but how exactly was it to be treated? The law allowed local Collectors to seize the goods of importers who had misdescribed them and these might be confiscated and sold. In extreme cases, offenders could be prosecuted in court and fined. More frequently, offenders, claiming honest error, were allowed simply to pay the difference in duty in a ‘post entry’. On the other hand, aggrieved importers might take legal action against Customs. The Department hated litigation and tried to avoid it at all costs. Nevertheless, seizures, confiscations and fines led to pecuniary rewards for the officers involved. The Department was highly politicised, in that the Commissioner who pronounced the final decision, was a member of the Government, fearful of making powerful enemies. It sometimes appeared wiser to take strong measures against small, rather than large, companies.

According to Shannon, on his first visit to Dunedin and Christchurch in November 1888 he saved the Government £700 by discovering what he called fraudulent deductions of alleged discounts from companies like Bing, Harris and Gavin Gibson and Co.[76] The possibility of prosecution quickly emerged. Fisher as Commissioner appeared keen, but Atkinson demurred. Both Fisher when out of office and newspapers like the Rangitikei Advocate and the Wellington Evening Post were concerned that the ‘big bugs’ were pressuring the Government to drop prosecutions. Fisher later complained that his suit against Bing, Harris had been aborted by Governmental colleagues, and ‘small firms were remorselessly persecuted while wealthy and fashionable houses, which were sweating the women and children of Dunedin, were able to evade the Customs laws with impunity.’[77] His fellow Irishman, the Rev. Rutherford Waddell, at the very moment that Dunedin soft goods men were agitating against Shannon, publicly attacked sweating and demanded a Royal Commission and unions for women.[78]

In early January 1889 Shannon, with the backing of Fisher, launched a forward policy of seizure. He had no authority to appropriate goods himself but acted through the local Collector of Customs who in turn reported to the Commissioner. Eighteen misdescribed pianos were confiscated in Auckland from an agent P.J. Nash, or the ‘Nash Hoffman ring’ as Shannon described it. The pianos were sold and Shannon netted a bonus of £36.8s.[79] Thus began a spate of Shannon-related seizures in all parts of the country, mainly of soft goods, but also cigars, brushware and tobacco. At Christchurch in February the Collector, Alex Rose, with Shannon on the spot, authorised the seizure of five cases of goods for Bing, Harris at Lyttelton.

Fisher as Commissioner urged on the apparently reluctant Rose to prosecute Bing, Harris. Rose, who later demonstrated that he had been troubled by Bing, Harris since 1883, but had been unable to take action,[80] still hesitated. But Fisher pressed: ‘A clear case of attempted fraud I never saw’. Through McKellar, Fisher explained why: ‘Commissioner wishes you to understand that he desires prosecution in the Bing, Harris cases to give publicity to practices which whether intentional or not are detrimental to the revenue and he considers that such action will have a beneficial effect in causing more care to be taken in entering goods. He does not attach importance to conviction or dismissal but in latter case amendment of the law may be necessary.’[81]

Nevertheless Government prosecution did not eventuate. Instead it was Bing, Harris who sued the Commissioner for illegal action against them. In April 1889, before the case reached the courts at Christchurch in July 1889, Fisher was himself forced out of office. Accused of stopping the prosecution of his publican friend, Hamilton Gilmer of Wellington’s Junction Brewery,[82] Fisher was abandoned by the Premier and Cabinet and compelled to resign. Shannon tried to secure the help of fellow-Irishman and Opposition leader, John Ballance, but was then induced to assure Atkinson that he was out of politics.[83] Fisher’s penchant for mateship and alcohol appears his undoing, but compounding with a relatively minor offender, while backing strong action against a powerful company, indicates a certain idealism.

Premier Atkinson now took the Commissionership of Customs himself. The court battle with Bing, Harris was an important test case for both sides. The soft goods importers wished both to demonstrate the absurd complexities of the 1888 tariff and to put an end to the new aggressive policy represented by Shannon’s appointment as Customs Expert. The Government, despite it normal reluctance to prosecute, was compelled to justify its tariff and render feasible its collection. Before Mr Justice Denniston, then newly appointed, and a special jury of four, the Government’s counsel were T.I. Joynt, ‘a brilliant Irish advocate’[84] and [J.C.] Martin. Bing, Harris engaged the future judge, T.W. Stringer and [Leonard?] Harper. [85]

Bing, Harris based its argument on five cases seized between 14 February and 2 March. The first two, containing shirts, Bing, Harris maintained were misdescribed through simple error, not deserving of confiscation. The latter three, the plaintiff claimed, were correctly described as silesias and fancy goods. The case continued for four days. The Christchurch Press gave it star billing with six tightly packed columns each day.[86] As witnesses, Bing, Harris presented, not only its relevant employees, led by general manager James Wilson up from Dunedin, and George Henry Wright the Christchurch manager, but a range of fellow importers: James Smith from Wellington, Frank Sutor Malcolm of G.L. Beath and Co., Paul Kahlenberg of P. Hayman and Co., William Kenning of Brown, Ewing and Co., Dunedin, Robert Beattie of Black, Beattie and Co., Dunedin, John Moore Richardson of Wilson and Richardson, Wellington, Ebenezer Charles Brown, DIC manager at Christchurch, Fletcher Dixon of Heywood and Co., and Joseph Taylor of Clarkson and Son. Beattie appears to have been the author of the Christchurch protest on Shannon’s appointment to Atkinson in December 1888, while Richardson, bought out by Kirkcaldie and Stains in 1890,[87] was almost certainly Shannon’s informant on the intentions of the trade in August 1888.

Opposed to Bing, Harris were the witnesses of the Customs Department, led by the Christchurch Collector, Alex Rose, and other officers engaged in the seizures. Customs also called W.H.C. Ives clerk to Messrs Clarkson and Sons, Edward Strange of W. Strange and Co., Christchurch, William Peters, manager for Ross and Glendining, Christchurch, Peter Donald, agent for Messrs Arthur and Co., Glasgow, and Robert Shanks, a manufacturing agent in Christchurch.

As Shannon was absent from the line-up, the drama appeared like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Bing, Harris counsel had clearly looked forward to cross-examining the Expert, especially on the question of wilful fraud. The judge, however, considered this an irrelevant issue, but put it to the jury to avoid an adverse ruling on appeal. A number of attempts by the plaintiffs to bring the Shannon issue centre stage as a grey eminence forcing on seizures were resisted by the Customs’ counsel and excluded by the judge, who ruled that what Mr Shannon said or thought had no bearing on the case. On the contrary, Alex Rose, as Collector at Christchurch, took full responsibility for all action and made no mention of the Expert.

In the end the contest kept strictly to the clerical error which misdescribed the first two cases of shirts and the claim that the latter three had been correctly denominated. The honest mistake contention exposed Bing, Harris’s evasive system, involving employees in both Dunedin and Christchurch, which allowed shirts, contrary to their invoices, to be passed free as buttons and drapery n.o.e.[88] Joynt insinuated that such an intricate chain of delegation, by which Bing, Harris’ own managers were kept unaware of the source of goods they sold, provided opportunity for deliberate fraud. The contested descriptions questioned whether lustres at 10%, could be exempt from duty like silesias, similarly used as linings, whether fur trimmings must be taxed at 25% as furs, and whether hanging a bag from a belt, otherwise taxed at 25%, made it ‘fancy goods’ at 20%. Such issues neatly encapsulated the difficulties raised by the new tariff which had led to Shannon’s appointment. While much of the discussion concerned women’s clothes and gave opportunities for double entendres over petticoats, no woman was called as a witness in what was considered essentially men’s business. By the fourth day of such argument, the exasperated judge complained, ‘We don’t want four more days of ginghams and derrys.’

Summing up, Denniston accepted the need for a Government expert; the importers all had their own to ensure that they paid the lowest duties possible. He rejected the comfortable system by which importers declared their goods minimally and, if necessary, paid up later: ‘it would never do for the revenue if importers were allowed to pass post entries when they found they could not get their goods through. It was simply heads they win, and tails they did not lose’. He agreed with Rose of Customs that ‘it was necessary to put their foot down.’ The proper course was for importers to consult the Department if they were not sure about their entries. If they then disagreed they could appeal to law. The lustres were clearly not silesias and had only been entered as such to get them through free. Similarly the fur trimmings and bags and belts had been passed on a low scale of duty, but Denniston was less positive than on the lustres, arguing that the jury might find them correctly described by Bing, Harris. The judge regretted that the issue of fraud had been raised. He maintained that a mistake could not be a deliberate fraud and that Bing, Harris had bona fide argued the case on the lustres, fur trimmings and belts and bags.

The special jury, heavily dependent of the judge’s summing up, took only ten minutes after a most complicated case to find for the Customs Department on the two cases of white shirts and the lustres, but accepted the loophole offered by Denniston and found for Bing, Harris on the fur trimmings and belts and bags. In a subsequent dispute with Rose over initiative on the seizures, Shannon claimed that he had originated the successful seizures, while Rose was responsible for the two that had lost.[89] Shannon’s ultimate reward for action on the case, pencilled into the ledger as an afterthought, was £31.2.0 to Rose’s £30.0.0. The jury also found that Bing, Harris had not wilfully misdescribed the goods seized. Costs were eventually awarded favourably to the Customs Department. McKellar was happy to make Bing, Harris pay the full costs of an action which had put the Department to such expense, while other firms which had misdescribed were to be let off lightly.[90]

In some ways, the court verdict appeared a draw. Customs had been vindicated on three of the five substantive seizures, but the jury had pronounced against deliberate dishonesty, an essential feature of Shannon’s pre-appointment correspondence with McKellar and Fisher and his notorious interview. Bing, Harris published a circular, entitled ‘a stupendous fraud’, attacking Shannon over the case.[91] However, the pleadings had exposed Bing, Harris’s extremely devious system of passing goods, in which nobody appeared to have the responsibility for checking authenticity. As Joynt argued, in such circumstances it was virtually impossible to prove deliberation. He showed that Mr Dick, one of the senior links in the inefficient chain, was surprisingly not presented as a witness. In any case, the judge found that the real issue might not be specific dishonesty but a consistent policy of passing every item at the lowest possible level in the hope that if unsuccessful no penalty but the higher duty would be imposed. The case became, as Fisher had anticipated earlier in the year, a public warning that Customs meant business.

Shannon himself continued to pursue deliberate fraud. He was involved in seven seizures in 1889; after that his participation in seizures became less frequent.[92] In 1889 he obtained for £80 47 copper plates comprising the bill heads of leading British soft goods houses, used for creating bogus invoices to deceive the Customs. Unfortunately, the swindlers, realising that Shannon was after them, ceased to use the system. When Shannon informed Atkinson, the Premier did nothing.[93] One fateful seizure had occurred at Auckland in early July 1889, before the Bing, Harris trial. Shannon discovered a dubious invoice from J. Gunn, agent for Stewart and MacDonald of Glasgow. Gunn had participated in the Dunedin protest against the appointment of the Expert. When Shannon compared Gunn’s entries over three years with the appropriate invoices considerable irregularities were discovered and Gunn was forced to pay a post entry of £125. Though Shannon was rewarded with £31.2.0. for his zeal,[94] he made a powerful enemy in Thomas MacKenzie, a future Liberal Prime Minister (March to July 1912), who had sold drapery from Stewart and MacDonald in Balclutha. McKenzie, a friend of Gunn, ardently supported free trade. According to Shannon, MacKenzie, admitting Gunn was the reason, promised to ‘make it hot for me.’[95]

Shortly after the conclusion of the Bing, Harris case, Shannon’s role and salary as Customs Expert was considered in the New Zealand House of Representatives’ debate on the estimates. MPs thrashed out the necessity for an Expert, the size of his salary, his position vis-a-vis the civil service, the length of the appointment, and Shannon’s fitness for the job.[96] MacKenzie emerged as the Expert’s chief critic, arguing that Shannon had no knowledge beyond soft goods and lacked expertise there too. He attacked Shannon for claiming fraud in the Bing, Harris case and showed that the trial demonstrated that Bing, Harris had overpaid more than it had saved by any misdescription. Atkinson, however, retorted that Shannon had demonstrated expertise, not incompetence, in the seizures and that the Government had won on three cases out of five. He reassured the House that Shannon’s position was not permanent, that he was not a member of the civil service and that he was paid out of the contingencies fund. In nine months, declared the Premier, Shannon had saved the colony £5000. A number of other MPs, including the Opposition Leader, Ballance, supported Shannon. As Richard Hobbs, a retired businessman representing the Bay of Islands, said, ‘there could be no doubt that this appointment had been a terror to evil-doers.’ Ballance agreed with Robert Bruce of Rangitikei that ‘it was not only what was to be saved that had to be considered but what was prevented.’

Ultimately, Shannon’s temporary position and salary continued for twenty years, despite periodic complaints from legislators and newspapers. Politicians who attacked Shannon in opposition, such as Richard Seddon, changed their tune in office, finding his knowledge especially useful when attempting tariff revision.[97] A storm arose in 1907 when Shannon’s travelling expenses of 30s a day throughout the year were finally revealed to the public. A parliamentary debate on the subject covered ten two-columned pages in the New Zealand Hansard.[98] But the Ministry of Joseph Ward, involved in intricate tariff legislation, still needed its expert.[99] Though the Government cut his travelling expenses to 15s a day when actually travelling, Shannon was continued on £800 and retired in his own time in 1909 on a pension at the age of 67. The Government could not have been more conciliatory. Shannon’s special value to successive ministries was indicated by his successor, Robert Williams, trained by Shannon himself. Williams obtained only £300 per annum, and was unsentimentally ‘dispensed with’ in 1913.[100]

Was Shannon worth his ‘screw’? Extant records make it difficult to assert as confidently as Atkinson that he had saved £5000 in nine months. Duties paid on softgoods increased from £137,377 in 1887-88, before the new tariff, to £237,526 in 1890-91. Only the duty on spirits raised more revenue. Though cotton piece goods had been reduced from 15% to 10%, their contribution rose from £2,457 to £10,997. Despite changed categories making comparisons difficult, more efficient collection may have been a factor.[101] The Customs Department Registers of Inward Correspondence, consisting mainly of letters from local Collectors to the Commissioner or Minister, indicate over the period 1889 to 1909, well over one thousand references to Shannon for advice, over and above his continued peripatetic investigations at different ports, and his advice at Parliament House when Customs legislation was in progress. Rather than participating in seizures, Shannon was called upon to give advice when companies like Bing, Harris, more cautiously than in 1889, protested against decisions of the local Collectors. Though many of the files which indicate Shannon’s response have been destroyed,[102] the handful that remain, sometimes with the samples of fabric still attached, demonstrate his thoroughness and the respect accorded to his views. The Secretary and Commissioner of Customs did not always accept his recommendations, but Shannon seems equally balanced between the interests of the Department and the importer.[103] Towards the end of his long tenure, he was called on to decide on many items ranging beyond drapery: cars,[104] marine oil engines,[105] Scott’s Emulsion,[106] Nestlé’s condensed milk,[107] electric insulator bolts,[108] sarsaparilla,[109] and phonographs.[110] But the old faithfuls, cotton piece goods requiring cutting,[111] and linings, for which Collectors demanded 20% as textile piece goods instead of allowing free as tailors trimmings, continued to appear.[112] And even after twenty years, Bing, Harris still posed problems, claiming in 1908, for example, that fancy collar supports were haberdashery, not fancy goods at a higher rate.[113] Fifty-two years after Shannon’s death in 1920, Bing, Harris merged with its rival Sargoods to form Bing, Harris Sargood until it was acquired nine years later by Brierley Investments and broken up in 1984.[114]

As a regulator of New Zealand business, Shannon worked according to Government prescription in the Liberal era to keep the balance between large and small firms, to encourage New Zealand industry, and favour imports resulting in clothes for ordinary people rather than luxury dresses for wealthy ladies. Reviled initially by large companies, then as now preferring self-regulation to effective Government control, Shannon, if sometimes unpopular, was acknowledged as a ‘valuable servant of the state’.[115] His papers are a corrective to political biographers weak on the ‘Yes Minister’ background to their heroes.

Footnotes

[1] Evening Press, Wellington, 10 December 1888. ‘Mr. Shannon is merely the first joint in the tail of the Black Budget.’

[2] This article is written with the support of a grant from the New Zealand History Research Trust Fund Awards in History, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, 2002.

[3] W.P. Reeves, The Long White Cloud: Ao Tea Roa (Auckland, Golden Press, [1898] 1973), pp. 258-9. Reeves believed that factories for woollens, printing, clothing, iron and steel, tanning, boots, furniture, brewing, jam-making, and brick and tile making ‘owe their existence in the main to the duties.’

[4] Evening Press, Wellington, 3 and 10 December 1888.

[5] Keith Sinclair, ‘The Significance of the “Scarecrow Ministry”, 1887-1891’, in Robert Chapman and Keith Sinclair, eds., Studies of a Small Democracy (Auckland University, 1963), pp. 102-126. For ‘seismic shift’, Jim McAloon, No Idle Rich: The Wealthy in Canterbury and Otago, 1840-1914 (Dunedin, Otago University Press, 2002), p. 105.

[6] David Hamer, The New Zealand Liberals: the Years of Power, 1891-1912 (Auckland UP, 1988), and McAloon for reassessment of Hamer.

[7] In 1873 William Graham applied for a post as Customs Expert. See Customs Department (C), 23, 1870-76, No. 765, National Archives of New Zealand (Wellington).

[8] New Zealand Free Lance, 12 December 1908. According to W.J. Gardner, A Pastoral Kingdom Divided: Cheviot, 1889-94 (Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 1992), p. 29, George Fisher could be described as either ‘a drunken demagogue’ or a man with ‘unrivalled common touch’.

[9] ‘Rags’ in New Zealand Times, 5 December 1888.

[10] Particularly noteworthy was their premises in Lichfield Street, Christchurch, described by the Lyttelton Times as an ‘elegant building’ with a frontage of white stone with a base of blue, ‘well broken up by pilasters and cornices of carved and moulded stone’ while the rest of the walls were of brick. The building was 37 feet with a depth of 60 feet. Quoted in Evening Post, 3 April 1883.

[11] Danielle Sprecher, ‘The Right Appearance: Representatives of Fashion, Gender and Modernity in Inter-War New Zealand, 1918-1939’, MA Thesis, Auckland University, 1997, quoted in Danielle Sprecher, ‘ Good Clothes are Good Business: Gender, Consumption and Appearance in the Office, 1918-39’, in Caroline Daley and Deborah Montgomerie, The Gendered Kiwi (Auckland Universty Press, 1999), p. 143. See also Julia Millen, Kirkcaldie and Stains: A Wellington Story (Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 2000), pp. 45-6. The Wellington rival to Thompson and Shannon had established tea rooms and toilets for customers by the 1890s. Thompson and Shannon show in their advertisements that they understood the need to divide men’s goods from those of ladies. See advertisement in Evening Post, 31 January 1887.

[12] G.V. Shannon to John Thompson, 28 July 1884, Black Letter Book, p.1, Series 2, Correspondence, Shannon Papers, Palmerston North Archives.

[13] Flier consisting of Evening Post article, 8 July 1885 in which Thompson and Shannon declare the Government proposals dropped and expansion taking place, Series 7, Newspaper clippings, Shannon Papers.

[14] Millen, Kirkcaldie and Stains, p. 39.

[15] New Zealand Times, 23 December 1886.

[16] New Zealand Times, 28 February and 1 March 1887.

[17] New Zealand Times, 23 March 1888.

[18] Evening Post, 5 February 1891.

[19] For Thompson’s revival of the foundry, see T.M. Williams, ‘Thompsons of Castlemaine: 1865-1925’, MA thesis, Monash University, 1996, pp. 18. 20 and 55.

[20] J.S. McKellar to Shannon, 26 July 1888, Series 2, Correspondence, Shannon Papers.

[21] G.V. Shannon to W.T. Glasgow, 5 August 1907, Shannon Papers; New Zealand Times, 20 August 1907.

[22] Evening Press, 3 December 1888.

[23] Shannon to McKellar, 27 August 1888, Shannon Papers. Shannon refers only to ‘Richardson’ but the above identification seems most likely in context. In 1890 Kirkcaldie and Stains bought the entire stock of Wilson and Richardson, see Millen, Kirkcaldie and Stains, p. 46.

[24] McKellar to Shannon, 7 September 1888. McKellar accepted the truth of the story, but showed that the protagonist was Peacock, not Perceval. There was never a John Perceval in the New Zealand Legislative Council, but John Thomas Peacock was then a sitting Councillor.

[25] Shannon to Fisher, 6 September 1888 and Shannon to H.S. McKellar, 11 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[26] Shannon to Atkinson, undated telegram, Shannon Papers.

[27] Shannon to Fisher, 6 September 1888, Shannon Papers. Shannon’s own letters in his papers are copies of correspondence; though the originals cannot be found, and may have varied slightly from the copies retained, the replies suggest that the variation was of little significance. As a careful and methodical businessman in an age before photocopiers (though not not before carbon copies which were used by the Customs Department) Shannon would have been aware of the importance of retaing accurate copies of his correspondence.

[28] G.V. Shannon to J. Thompson, 5 May 1887, Shannon Papers.

[29] McKellar to Shannon, 28 August 1888, Shannon Papers.

[30] Shannon to McKellar, 1 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[31] ‘You are a devil to talk, & you are likewise a devil to write. You must get up early in the morning. About the time you used to go home, eh?’ Fisher to Shannon, 18 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[32] Fisher to Shannon, 8 October 1888, Shannon Papers.

[33] Shannon to Fisher, 1 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[34] Shannon to Fisher, 8 September 1888, Shannon Papers: Shannon’s son after only five years in drapery could fill the position better than Hurton, for example.

[35] Shannon to Fisher, 6 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[36] Shannon to McKellar, 11 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[37] Shannon to Fisher, 3 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[38] Shannon to McKellar, 17 September 1888, Shannon Papers.

[39] Fisher to Shannon, 8 October 1888, Shannon Papers.

[40] G.V. Shannon Diary, 20 October 1888, Shannon Papers.

[41] G.V. Shannon to W.T. Glasgow, 5 August 1907, Shannon Papers; New Zealand Times, 20 August 1907.

[42] McKellar’s recommendation, Dept of Trade and Customs No 1880/616, copy in Shannon Papers.

[43] McKellar to Shannon, 22 October 1888, Shannon Papers.

[44] McKellar to Shannon, 5 November 1888, Shannon Papers.

[45] Shannon Diary, 10, 12 and 19 November 1888, Shannon Papers.

[46] Shannon Diary, 14 November 1888, Shannon Papers.

[47] Evening Post, 6 December 1888.

[48] G.H. Scholefield, Newspapers in New Zealand (Auckland, Reed, 1958), p. 37.

[49] Before Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, Gaboriau’s L’Affaire Lerouge (1866), starring Pierre Tabaret as the amateur and Lecoq as the professional, represented the analytical fictional detectives.

[50] Evening Press, 4 December 1888.

[51] New Zealand Times,, 5 December 1888.

[52] Otago Daily Times, 21 December 1888.

[53] Auckland Star, 5 December 1888.

[54] Evening Press, 3 and 4 December 1888.

[55] Shannon left Wellington for Lyttleton on 3 December. He must have visited the Evening Press office in Wellington before the hostile articles and may have considered the paper friendly. See Shannon Diary.

[56] Evening Press, 5 December 1888.

[57] Evening Press, 6 December 1888.

[58] New Zealand Times, 6 December 1888.

[59] Evening Post, 6 December 1888.

[60] New Zealand Herald, 15 December 1888 (Calamo Currente).

[61] Evening Post, 6 December 1888; Southland News, 6 December 1888.

[62] Scholefield, Newspapers in New Zealand, pp. 175 and 222: France, Marlborough College, and Heidelberg University.

[63] Otago Daily Times, 4 December 1888.

[64] Scholefield, Newspapers in New Zealand , pp. 37-8.

[65] For Victorian Customs, 1850-1901 see David Day, Smugglers and Sailors: The Customs History of Australia, 1788-1901 (Australian Government, Canberra, 1993), pp. 280-304.

[66] Rangitikei Advocate, 8 December 1888; the Evening Star, 22 February 1889, also justified Shannon’s appointment, believing that nothing too severe could be said of those who defrauded the revenue.

[67] New Zealand Times, 27 November 1888.

[68] C, 4, 32, 600(Outward Letter Books, 24 January 1889). The Auckland merchants protested against Shannon’s reflections on their honesty.

[69] The deputation, in the report published in the Otago Daily Times, 18 December 1888, referred to the interview in the Christchurch Press, but it was in fact in the Wellington Evening Press.

[70] There was much confusion at the time whether the required length was seven yards or seven feet. Seven yards was considered too long for a shirt without waste of material, while seven feet meant that the shirt would be backless.

[71] Evening Press, 20 December 1888.

[72] Probably Robert Beattie.

[73] Quoted in part, Christchurch Press, 27 July 1889. See 5 December 1889 for first Christchurch meeting.

[74] Evening Post, 22 December 1888 and Christchurch Press, 23 December 1888.

[75] C, 2, 26, 600, Outward Correspondence.

[76] Shannon to Ballance, 18 January 1892, Shannon Papers and Diary, 3-12 November 1888. In his diary Shannon refers by name to Gavin Gibson and Co, but not Bing Harris.

[77] Rangitikei Advocate, 20 March and 12 December 1889; Evening Post, 23 March 1889; Fisher, House of Representatives, 28 August 1889, quoted in New Zealand Times, 29 August 1889.

[78] Otago Daily Times, 12 December 1888.

[79] C, 20, 3, Register of Seizures, 89/114; Diary, 23 January 1889.

[80] Court evidence, Christchurch Press, 25 July 1889.

[81] C, 4, 26, Outward Letter Books, Nos 698 and 116.

[82] Fisher ordered a stay in proceedings in December 1888, C, 2, 5, 1049. It is surprising that David McGill, The Guardians at the Gate: The History of the New Zealand Customs Department (New Zealand Customs Department, Wellington, 1991), only mentions Atkinson in connection with the enforced retirement of George Fisher as Customs Commissioner, and makes no reference to Shannon.

[83] Shannon Diary, 5 April and 9 May 1889, Shannon Papers.

[84] O.T.J. Alpers, Cheerful Yesterdays (Hamilton, Paul’s Book Arcade, 1951), p. 209.

[85] See J.G. Denniston, A New Zealand Judge: Sir John Edward Denniston (Dunedin, Reed, 1939), p. 77. Denniston took his seat as judge on 12 March. Leonard Harper was member for Avon 1882-7.

[86] Christchurch Press, 23-27 July 1888.

[87] Millen, Kirkcaldie and Stains, p. 46.

[88] Not otherwise enumerated. The duty on drapery was 20%, but on made up shirts 25%.

[89] C, 2, 6, 1620 and 1627. The appropriate files in the New Zealand National Archives have been destroyed, but Shannon’s Papers supply the missing facts. Alex Rose Report on Bing, Harris pianos, 20 February 1889, Shannon Papers.

[90] McKellar to Atkinson, 7 November 1889, C, 4, 34, Outward Letter Books, August to Dec. 1889, 528.

[91] Evening Post, 12 August 1889. The Post repudiated any responsibility for the leaflet.

[92] 0 in 1890, 1 in 1891, 0 in 1892, 3 in 1893, 1 in 1894, 2 in 1895 and 1 in 1898. Rose, however, continued to be particularly active in appropriating misdescribed property.

[93] G.V. Shannon to J.A. Millar, 18 November 1907, Shannon Papers; Rangitikei Advocate, 19 December 1889.

[94] C, 20, 3, Register of Seizures, 89/678.

[95] G.V. Shannon to J.A. Millar, 18 November 1907, Shannon Papers.

[96] NZPD, 66, pp. 141-3 (27 August 1889).

[97] Seddon complained in the August 1889 debate that Shannon had a salary equivalent to that of a minister and it was ‘a moral impossibility for a man who was travelling about in steamboats and trains one-half of his time to fully grasp what was going on’. He thought that the local Customs officers, not Shannon, were responsible for the saving of £5,000. But as Premier Seddon declared Shannon’s services ‘very valuable’ to the colony. NZPD, 83, p. 190 (1894).

[98] NZPD, NZPD, 140, pp. 296-301 (16 August 1907) and pp. 912-22 (15 November 1907).

[99] Shannon Diary, 29 August 1907, Shannon Papers.

[100] Customs Department, List of Officers Guaranteed, 1, 4, Archives of New Zealand, Wellington. There was also a hardware expert, William Alfred Cameron, appointed in 1904, whose tenure continued and who had overlapped with Shannon.

[101] Appendix to Journals of the House of Representatives, 1891, Vol. 1, B 17. ‘Drapery’, however, fell by £54,910, despite being raised from 15% to 20% duty. This may have resulted from the hiving off of some new categories and a possible protective effect.

[102] Many Customs files were deliberately destroyed in clearances in 1916 and 1963. Furthermore, large batches of those supposed to be extant have mysteriously disappeared.

[103] See C, 1, 1891/1218; 1893/1607; 1901/671; 1904/2151; 1906/375; 1906/882; 1907/1126; 1907/2146; 1908/599; 1908/611; 1908/1088.

[104] C, 1, 1908, 1133.

[105] C, 1, 1908, 2682.

[106] C, 1, 1908, 2070.

[107] C, 1, 1908, 1956, 1859.

[108] C, 1, 1908, 1811.

[109] C, 1, 1908 1575.

[110] C, 1, 1907, 1163.

[111] C, 1, 1908, 259.

[112] C, 1, 1908, 342.

[113] C, 1, 1908, 1140.

[114] Graeme Hunt, The Rich List: Wealth and Enterprise in New Zealand, 1820-2000 (Auckland, Reed, 2000), p. 111.

[115] Otago Daily Times, 19 September 1907.

Published: 10-4-2003 http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/davis3.htm