MR. DINME'S APPOINTMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 866, 12 July 1910, Page 4

MR. DINME'S APPOINTMENT.

A large section of tho public appears to have been astounded at the appointment of Me. Dinnie, late Commissioner of Police, to the office of President of a Maori Land Board. A btilJ larger section, we venture to think, will be seriously perturbed at the .amazing reasons put forward by Snt Joseph Waiui' and Mr. Carroll in defence of the appointment. Commentary upon their statements is hardly necessary, but a little comment is permissible in order that the public may realise that what amounts to nothing less tiian a public scandal is contemplated by the Uovcrnment. Mn. Carroll's dei'oncc requires little notice, in summary it consists oi! three allirniations, which we condeuse here with full coafidenco thata reference to the text will show the coucLn&utiou to bo fair. Ivlu. Carroll hays: (1) That Mn. Dinnie is competent "to silt, examine, and weigh evidence and to take just action thereupon"; (2) that owing to tho law the duties of .Mn. Dinnib can only be mechanical; and (:j) that jle. uinnie "enters upon his duties with a fair and open mind, without any unconscious bias, which sometiiues arose from long familiarity with Native land tiaiisactions." Tho first plea is, of course, irrelevant, if it does not indeed involve a mis-statement. The second plea is that it does not matter who is appointed to the presidency of a Maori Land Board; and the third implies tho principle that the more ignorant a man is of Native affairs the more competent he is to deal with them. The Prime Minister's statement is a much more serious matter. Mn. Dinnie, be says, possesses all the chief qualifications for the, position, which are defined as "a knowledge of law, and integrity and honesty." Of Mr. Dinnie's integrity and honesty we have nothing to say; of his ''knowledge of law" we know nothing; but of his knowledge of Native land law, of the Maori language and of Maori customs it would be absurd u< pretend that Mn. Dinme knows anything. The Prime Minister enlarges, having nothing better to say, upon the "personal honour" of Mr. Dinnie. "What has Mn. Dinnie ; s "personal honour , ' to do with the* question 1 He may bo, no doubt he is, a perfectly honourable man; but docs the Prime Minister expect the public to believe thai because a man is honest ho is therefore competent to deal with a complex special question concerning which ho knows nothing? The Phiuie Minister's other arguments are— (1) That "if Mr. Dinnie wa-s not appointed some other person would have to be appointed and receive the same salary—£4oo a year"; and (2) that "the appointment is absolutely legal." Nobody disputes cither of these two assertions. They may both be admitted, and the case against the appointment of Mr. DiNNiB will not be weakened in tho smallest degree. In effect, the Ministerial defence, so far as it is relevant, consists of tho claim that Mr. Dinnie is ignorant on tho points where knowledge is necessary, and is, moreover, an honest man. In other words, the Government has entirely failed to meet t.ho case stated by ourselves, our evening contemporary, and other journals. And its excuses are so weak and clumsy that the only result will be that the public will ask, more loudly than before, what are the real reasons that weigh so strongly with the Government in this matter.