NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1846, 4 September 1913, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

A great deal of time has been wasted in inquiring into tho appointment of Mr. Simpson to the Westport Harbour Board, ancl tor this the' Government are partly to blame. It has been clearly shown that whatever Me. Simpson's record as a hotelkeeper may have been—and it may be said in passing that Ins offending agtfinst the law has. been much misrepresented—the Minister of Marine knew nothing derogatory to Mn. Simpson when ho adopted tho recommendation of the Karamea Chamber of Commerce that he should be appointed to tho Wcstpoit Harbour Board. It has also been clearly demonstrated that despite the convictions recorded against him, the people of the district in which Me. Simpson lives have every confidence in him as one well worthy to fill public offices_ within tho gift of the citizens, as witness his unopposed return as a member of the Bullcr County Council. But the time spent in bringing to light these facts and in discussing them in the House was not warranted. It was plain from the outset that the purpose behind Me. Atmoee|s attack on the Minister of Marine was nothing more than a party manoeuvre, with just a suspicion also that the member for Nelson is particularly anxious just now to find a means of .discrediting the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher. There have been rumours afloat that Mn. Fisher has been ■asked to contest the Nelson seat, and no doubt Mr. Atmore has not felt very comfortable over the prospect of so strong an opponent coming into his electorate. But if any cvi-J dence were needed of the weakness of the case against the Minister and against the Government in this matter of Mr. Simpson's appointment, it is to be found in the fact that the wholo of the Opposition members on the Committee agreed to the report brought down exonerating the Minister from all blame. When, however, Government members on the Committee refused to include in the report an expression of opinion that Mr. Atmore was justified in making the charges he, had made on the floor of tho House, the Opposition members changed front, and disagreed with' the findings brought down. Mr. Isitt, whose party bias grows more pronounced each_ day, attempted to explain away this evidence of tho deplorable lack of principle behind the action of tho Opposition members by stating _ that it was a matter of compromise. If this means anything at all, it means that the Opposition were prepared to knowingly put their names to an unjust finding, provided the Government members of the Committee would include in the finding something which they knew to bo unwarranted. Whichever way the Opposition now seek to explain their' action, they cannot escape the just condemnation of those who believe that even in party politics thero arc obligations imposed on members when acting in a judicial capacity to do justice on the plain merits of the matter under consideration.

It is very unfortunate that the investigation of 'the wreck of the steamer Devon should' have been conducted before a Court of Inquiry one of the members of which had been refused the position of pilot on tho vessel for the trip during which tho mishap occurred. No suggestion has been made, bo far as we know, that Captain Black, the pilot in question, was influenced in any way in carrying out his duty as assessor by the refusal of the captain of the Devon to accept his services, and indeed ho seems to have been opposed to the suspension of Captain Caunce's certificate. But the principle of tho thing is a wrong one. Our Courts of Justice should be free even from the possibility of suspicion that those sitting in judgment may be influenced by any other consideration than the simple facts of the question set down for decision. The Minister of Marine, in refusing a. rehearing of the case, does so on the ground that the finding of the Court was arrived at without the concurrence of Captain Black. This may be tho case for all we know, but it may not, for Captain Black, though ho dissented from the penalty imposed, may have concurred in the finding of the Court, and certainly ■participated in the deliberations of the Court, which took place in private. But the Minister's reply does not really touch on the vital question at issue, which is not merely that there should be no evidence of injustice, but-that there should be no room even for suspicion of injustice. When Captain Black was appointed one of the nautical assessors at tho inquiry the • Minister was not aware of the incident relating to the refusal of Captain Caunce to accept tho offer of his services as pilot, and Captain Black's attitude at tho inquiry would seem to indicate that in other circumstances he would have been an excellent choice. But the fact remains that the captain of the lost vessel feels that the inquiry under the circumstances may have been affcctcd to his detriment— not consciously, but unconsciously— and it is manifest that it is opposed to the public interest that any doubt of such a nature should be allowed to exist. It is a matter of very grave concern to Captain Caunce, who has so much personally at stake, but it is of still graver import as a question of public policy affecting the confidence of the community in the absolute impartiality of our Courts of Justice, that where such ground of suspicion exists of the presence of conscious or unconscious bias in the administration of justice, the person placed at a disadvantage thereby should be debarred a further opportunity of having his case investigated by a - fresh tribunal.

The Chairman of the Harbour Board in his apology for the weakness shown by the Board in handling the strike of its permanent employees wished to make it appear that we were in some way in' error in condemning the "weak expedient of a temporary suspension." Apparently, his point is that as the member's of the permanent staff have the right of appeal when dismissed,

the Board is unable to copo with wholesale insubordination, _ except by temporary suspension of its staff. That is to say, if the staff strikes, the Board cannot put on other men to take the placc of the strikers until the strikers havo appealed. This surely is so much nonsense. What is to happen if at a busy time ,thc permanent hands _ refuse to■ work? Is the Board to sit down .with its hands in it lap, and let I'ihing&idriit/Qf course not. Whatever'Mr:. EiJErmiER might dike to do, the majority of the-Board would, presumably, set to work to secure sufficient labour to carry on the neglected business of the port. What would happen then J Would the strikers appeal? And if they did appeal, what would he the result in face of their dishonourable breach of their undertaking with the Board I They would get a short shrift, and they would deserve it. Mr. Fletcher apparently holds the view that when one party to a contract breaks faith, the other party (so long as it is the unfortunate general public) must still stick to its side of tho undertaking. His attitude is so illogical and unreasonable when carefully analysed that it is quite staggering in its disregard of all but tho interests of the Board's employees. He says, in effect: tho Board's policv is in favour' of- prirftefthfcte<i*£iHc!s«i fore wh'&tir Mn uh'K/n'lsts break their agreement and refuse to work, we cannot replace them,with free labour. Mr. Fletcher'prates a great deal about his concern for his "duty to the people who sent him. there," but ho has a very curious idea at times as to what constitutes his dutvj. It.is gratifying to note that tHiere aro-meihisra «'»i6 tho Board who •have b'et.fcor realisation of v tho-obli-gations resting on them to safeguard the interests of the public.