The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1911. LAW AND JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1211, 21 August 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1911. LAW AND JUSTICE.

Two oi the matters dealt with by the Chief Justice in his report on the chargcs levelled against the Cook Islands Administration relate to the ignorance displayed by the Resident Commissioner regarding <;ourt procedure and the lax enforcement of tho law in relation to the drinking of bush beer. It has to be borne in mind in considering the report that it is based throughout on evidence put forward by the defence. That those making tho chargcs declined to appear or to produce their evidence before a secrc-fc inquiry with the witnesses not- examined on oath; and that the only witness who did appear from amongst their number was the ex-Inspector of Police, Mr. Reynolds, who made a statement respecting his dismissal. Mr. Reynolds, it may be said in passing, was dismissco, without being afforded an opportunity of defending himself, on the grounds of personal hostility. As an evidence of the esteem in which ho ia held 'by 'the residents of the Cuok Islands he has received an expression of confidence in, and appreciation of, his efforts as Inspector of Police by practically the whole of the European population of Rarotonga. We shall havo .something t.o say regarding the treatment of Mr. Reynolds in due course, and merely make this brief reference to him -to^cmphasiso'certain facts touched on in connection with the charges concerning court procedure and bush-beer drinking. The first of these chargcs against the Resident Commissioner, who is also Chief Justice of the High Court of the Cook Islands, was as follows: —

■■ That the Chief .Tustico fof tho Cook Islands] insists, or has insisted, upon the administration of the oath before an accused person is called upon to plead; this wholly and improper and illegal proceeding bringing the administratis of justice into ridicule and contempt.

This chargc is a serious one for two reasons. In the first place the charge alleges conduct in defiance of the established principles v.bich govern procedure in our courts of justice' designed specially to ensure that accused persons shall not be required to givo evidence on oath unless they choose to do so. It is a very important principle indeed, ancl the departure stated, if proved, would not only be likely to bring the Court into ridicule and contempt, but be directly prejudicial to the chances of an accused person thus forced to give evidence on oath. In the second place, the action of the Chief Justicc of the Cook Islands displays such ignorance of law and court procedure that it must naturally arouse concern as to the administration of justice by the person guilty of it. One of the complaints made against the Resident Commissioner, who is also the Chief Justice of the Cook Islands, is that until he went to the Islands he had had no legal training and no experience of law or court procedure—that he was merely a Civil Servant who had found favour with the Ministry and been pushed into an office for which he could not possibly have the necessary qualifications. It was really the height of absurdity—an outrage on common sense and a scandalous injustice to . the population of the Cook Islands—that a Civil Servant of this kind should be appointed to the position of Chief Justice of the High Court of the Islands. . Whatever his personal worth might be it must have been obvious to everyone that it was a most dangerous thing to hand over to an utterly inexperienced man without any legal training the sole control of the administration of justicc at the Islands, and without any power of appeal from his decisions. So far as the particular charge outlined above is concerned, Sir Robert Stout, in his report to Parliament, has to admit that the charge was proved. He says:

Tho other charge was that prisoners who were charged with drunkenness, etc., were sworn before their plea was received. This apparently seems to have been done in some instances, and was not warranted, but I am not aware that anv injury was dono to anyone.

Here, as in every case throughout the report, the Chief Justice, when even on the one-sided evidence available tho facts arc too strong to be ignored, treats the proved offence in a light and airy manner, and brushes it aside with the comment: "I am not aware that any injury has been suffered by anyone." How could lie bo aware whether any injury was suffered by anyone, and what has that to do with the matter? In dealing .with the complaints made by Inspector Reynolds, Sir. Robert Stout says: "I did not consider it my duty, nor had 1 the time were it my duty, to rehear the cases Mr. Reynolds mentioned and thus ascertain whether the sentences were proper," But lie does think it his duty without rehearing the other cases mentioned to smooth over a very grave lapse on the part of the Commissioner with thc_ utterly valueless expression of opinion: "I am notaware thai- any injury wan done to aaYoae." This, aa we have pointed

out in our previous articles, is the spirit permeating the whole report. Turning now to the bush-beer drinking. This was another charge that was proved up to the hilt. Li liis official reply to tho original criticism of Mr.. Hoskino, the Resident Commissioner and Chief Justice of the Cook Islands said:

Ilis remarks with regard to the conduct of my Court I do not think it necessary for me to reply to further tlmn lo draw your attention to the decrease in bush-beer drinking cases of sixly-six during my first your compared with the previous yea v.

This statement is a very unfortunate one for the Resident Commissioner. One of the complaints made by Ex-Inspector Reynolds is that his efforts to put down bush-beer drinking were not supported as they should be by the Commissioner. The ex-inspector says:

I endeavoured to stamp out bush-beer drinki;>'g and its attendant evils, but the s I received was feeble.

Then follow details of the steps taken and the discouragement met with. Ex-Inspector Reynolds considered the drunkenness and rowdyism which are the usual accompaniments of this bush-beer drinking were a serious menace to the community, and Headed repressing with a firm hand. Yet the Commissioner takes pride in the fact that the number of prosecutions had decreased. It was only_ a short time subsequent to this opinion of Captain Smith's that the shockicg tragedy occurred at the Islands when a Native was shot dead by a white settler, named Wigjiore. The disclosures of the drunkenness and debauchery associated with tho shooting, as brought out at the trial, will be recalled by our readers. These drunken orgies it was admitted were a common occurrence. And what does Sir Robert Stout's report have to say on tho subject:

This manufacture of alcohol seems to Ijo very prevalent in the bush districts, and also 111 some of the villages, and it is having a very injurious effect on the Natives. Mr. Reynolds complains that (iie Commissioner was not insistent on the stopping of this bush-beer making in the Islands. It is doubtful if there is a sufficient force of police in the Islands to put it down.

Here again it will be seen that the charge—in face of the Commissioner's boast of the reduced number, of prosecutions—is proved; but again an excuse is dragged in: "It is doubtful if there is a sufficient force of police in the Islands to put it down." Inspector Reynolds was putting it down, and was satisfied that if the Commissioner would support him he could put it down. His complaint was that he did not get that support. It is interesting to note that Sir Rohert Stout later in his report says: "I am also of opinion that there will have to be more strenuous efforts made to put down what is termed 'bush-beer'making." Thus we have it proved that Inspector Reynolds's efforts to put down bush-beer drinking should have been encouraged, and that the Resident Commissioner's boast of the reduced number of prosecutions recoils on his own head. But the report makes no comment on these things.. The Chief Justice, 'in face even of tho disclosures made, has ignored altogether the question of the responsibility charged against the Resident Commissioner for not taking adequate steps to put down the state of things admitted to exist.