WHERE THE MONEY WENT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1521, 17 August 1912, Page 4

WHERE THE MONEY WENT.

A few days ago we referred to an item on the Estimates, £504 for legal expenses in connection with the Hike charges, and we sought information as to whose expenses this sum represented. This information, and a good deal more besides, was disclosed to the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, and we would commend the report of the debate, which appears elsewhere, to tho attention of our readers. It brings to light a very shady business, and if the sequence of events and the dates are closely followed tbe wrigglings and twistings of the apologists for the Ward Administration will be clearly recognised. To begin with, the £004 went to pay the legal expenses of the persons against whom the charges were levelled by Mn. Hike. The persons charged were all supporters of the Ward Government, Mr. Hine was not. It has now come to light that before the -Hine Inquiry started Mr. Skerrett was promised by the then Attorney-General (Dr. Findlay) that his legal expenses in de-' fending the accused would be paid by the Government if Mr. Skerrett could not collect them from his clients. Subsequent to this promise being made for the benefit of the defendants the question was raised as to whether Mr. Hine's costs would be paid by the Government. This was refused. Tho actual proposition put before Sir Joseph Ward on this occasion apparently was that the costs of both parties should be paid by the Government, but seeing that defendants' counsel had already been his costs by tho Government, it was really only Mr. Hine who was affected by the refusal. Mn. Hine, it may be said, knew nothing of this request as to liis costs. So the position stood throughout the inquiry. On one side the counsel of the friends of the Ward Government, the defendants, had the costs of defence guaranteed; on the other tlie member who had made the charges in the interests of clean politics, was loft to face the burden of the cost himself. A long delay occurred in the paying over of the legal costs of tbe defendants, due, it is stated, to the absence of Mn. Skerrett in England. In the meantime, however, the elections had taken place, and tho Ward Government was in extremis. Tho Ministry still desired to keep its undertaking to pay the costs of its friends; but it realised that there was likely to be trouble over the payment; so it suddenly awoke to the fact that Mr. Hine had some claims to consideration, and Sin Joseph Ward sent for Mr. M. Myers, Mr. Hine's counsel. Mn. Myers, judging-by-his letter on the subject, appears to have at once seen through the purpose behind the awakening of the Ward Government to the injustice done to his client; and Mr. Hike refused to be associated with tho friends of the Ministry in having his costs paid, and so left the Government in their dilemma. They passed the authority for the payment of tho money the day before they left office. Wc do not think anyone will bo in the least deceived by the very lame explanations made in the House of Representatives yesterday for the most improper behaviour of the Ward Government throughout this affair. As Mr. Lee pointed out, the Ward Government would never have offered to pay Mr. Hine's costs had they not desired to pay the costs of their own friends. This is plain enough from their first refusal and from their conduct throughout. Why did Sir Joseph Ward wait t;wo years before offering to pay Mr. Hike's costs? Why should the payment of his costs bo dependent on whether or not counsel for tho friends of the I Government was able to collect his costs from his clients'! All the merits were on the side of Mr. Hine, yet he is placed at a disadvantage from the beginning. Moreover, who decided that the defendants were not in.a position to meet their legal obligations? Was any attempt made to recover the costs from them-? And why was not Mr. Skerrett's bill of costs taxed in tho usual way? We do not suggest that Mr. Skerrett did not well earn the fees charged, but why was not his bill of costs submitted to tho Registrar in the usual way? The affair illustrates the deplorable moral state of_ the Spoils party. Eager, in' the beginning, to silence I' Mr. Hine, they assailed him with the utmost rancour 'at tho outset, when an honest Government would have hastened to afford facilities for tho ventilation of the charges. In the House and in tho country they stormed ■ and raved at him, until many a bewildered elector must have fancied that Mr._ Hine himself was on trial for having.received illegal commissions as a member for Parliament, instead of it being the friends of the Government who were arraigned. When, with the assistance of his _ counsel, _ Mr. Myers, he succeeded in establishing, even against a packed and partisan committee, and against all the financial resources of the Government, the correctness of some of his serious allegations—so serious that the House had to adopt a resolution on the subject—he was reviled more bitterly than ever. Finally, they have tried their best to hush up the crowning scandal of the payment of the expenses of the persons charged. One cannot avoid reflection upon what would have happened had the Spoils party not been destroyed last December.What possibility would there then have been of any offer being made to Mr. Hine? On the unsuccessful attempts yesterday to obscure tho now very plain facts it is perhaps not necessary to enlarge further. They speak for themselves. The public will to-day know a little better than ever the sort of Government they ■ were wise enough to destroy last December