Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE MEIKLE CASE.

,0f lute the Ministerialist newspapers have frequently, and without even the faintest pretence of advancing evidence upon the point, assured the country that the opponents of the Government have grievously wasted the time of Parliament during the current session. It is to be hoped that

tlie public lias Liken note of the quiirter from which has proceeded the unreasonable and discreditable obstruction of the lleikle Acquittal Bill, and has taken note also of the difference between the Premier's attitude towards that obstruction and his angry impatience of reasonable contributions by the Opposition to the debates in the House. In bringing in the Bill the Government was acting in full accordance with the directions of the Royal Commission that investigated the claims of Mr. Meiklc to have set right an error committed by the Law. The issue before the House was a simple one, and one which did not require or permit the assumption by Parliament of the functions of a jury on a criminal trial. This_ is not to say that there was no legitimate ground for opposition possible. Hostile criticism might quite reasonably have proceeded along either of two lines, It might, for instance,, have been urged that"the Bill ran contrary to _ the recommendations of the Commission—in our opinion an incorrect contention, but. still one meriting a fair hearing. Or it might, have been contended that Parliament should refrain from any interference with even a mistaken decision given under criminal' law. The Government members who have obstructed the measure made a pretence of basing their obstruction upon the first of these contentions, but it was only a pretence. As a matter of fact, it was openly stated, and quite notorious, that the only motive of the principal obstructionists was antagonism to Mr. Mcikle. For members to permit personal prejudices to influence their actions as legislators is to commit a breach of trust, and is a grave offence against the integrity of Parliament. Nqr is the Premier wholly free from blame in. the matter. He has already shown us this session that, when it suits his purpose, he is able to bring his rebellious followers into line. They, in their turn, ha\o demonstrated, quite unmistakably a willingness to cease rebellion the moment they realise that rebellion is seriously distasteful to their leader. It is greatly to be regretted that the Premier has taken no decided step to break down the factious opposition to this Bill, and prevent this scandalous waste of time at so critical a stage of the session. By neglecting to do .so he has greatly impaired the credit due to him for bringing in the measure—a credit already injured , by his withholding the Bill from discussion until so late" - a stage of the session.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19071105.2.13

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 35, 5 November 1907, Page 4

Word Count
460

THE MEIKLE CASE. Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 35, 5 November 1907, Page 4

THE MEIKLE CASE. Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 35, 5 November 1907, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert