MINISTERIAL INDISCRETIONS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1764, 31 May 1913, Page 4

MINISTERIAL INDISCRETIONS.

Whatever may be the finding of the Parliamentary Committee wnich has been inquiring into the purchase of American Marconi Company shares by certain members of the British Cabinet, the result of the inquiry should serve a useful purpose in enabling the public to see how necessary it is that Ministers of the Crown should keep themselves absolutely clear of any suspicion of using their office for personal gain. A cablegram which wo published yesterday indicated that the committee was divided on its finding, and that the division was on party lines. It has been made clear during the course of the inquiry that there was a very strong division of opinion on the committee. One section _ of members throughout the proceedings have pursued a line, of examination with witnesses designed to show that the buying and selling of American Marconi shares by Mr. LloydGeorge, Sir Rufus Isaacs, and the Master of Elidank were ' the most ordinary transactions in the world, and that under no conceivable set of circumstances could the fact that they were members of a .Government which had just arranged, and had not completed the details of, a contract with tho British Marconi Company, arouse any suspicion or distrust. On the other hand there was another section of the committee which, while not imputing corruption on the part of Ministers, emphasised such points as the price paid on tho first purchase of snares and the profits realised by Mr. LloydGeouge through their sale three days later; the fact that the shares were all originally purchased by Sir ItUFUS Isaacs froni his brother Harry, who had obtained them from another brother, Godfrey, who was the general manager of tho British Marconi Company; and the further fact that whereas Miv. Lloyd-George claimed to have bought his original shares as an investment, he sold the majority of them within a few days at a handsome profit. These and other facta disclosed by the evidence, while they did not provo any corrupt use of office on the part of Ministers —and any suggestion that Ministers had been in any way favoured ot had by' virtue of their office been in possession of any advantage not possessed by the public was hotly denied —yet could not fail to raise a doubt in the. minds of many as to whether the Ministers concerned _ had acted with duo discretion. It is somewhat significant in this respect tlhat while the members of tho Cabinet not implicated in the Marconi share transactions loyally deny any corrupt act or intention on the part of their colleagues, they have not, so far as the lilcs of English papers to hand show, ventured to go so far as to say that they would have made similar purchases under the Bame circumstances. It is an excellent thing-for the maintenance of a proper standard of conduct in public life that whenever there is any real ground for suspicion as to'the actions of a public man in which his private interests may appear to conflict with his public obligations, that they should bo cleared away in a manner which can leave as little room for doubt as possible. The behaviour dl Mil. LloydGeoroe and Sir Hufus Isaacs not only in the purchase of tho shares, but in the matter of their reticence when questions were asked in Parliament, did give ground for the suspicion that they at least had acted indiscreetly. Had the Chancellor of .the Exchequer not placed himself beforo the country as such a model of virtue, it is possible that lie would have escaped more lightly at the hands of tho citics who professed to be so horrified at such a stalwart opponent of gambling embarking ou a stock exchange speculation of this nature. That one so perfects— one who had set up such lofty standards of political morality for tTie guidance of Cabinet Ministers—should have trodden such perilous ground himself, naturally made an opportunity not to bo missed by those of less exalted virtues. But behind all the pother which has been created by these sharo purchases by Ministers is the deep-seated desire of the British people to keep British statesmanship clean, and the integrity of British Cabinet Ministers unsullied. (Suspicious actions by those in authority, however innocent they may be in actual fact, Btrikc at the root of public confidence, and unless proper steps arc taken to remove the doubts generated, not only the individual, but the institution of which lie is a part, must sink in public esteem and be weakened, and its opportunities for usefulness impaireu.