LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2459, 12 May 1915, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE BAY OF ISLANDS ELECTION PETITION. Sir, —Your morning and evening contemporaries appear to bo running amok over the Bay of Islands election petition, the result of which is by no means conclusive, although it has to bo admitted there can be no appeal from tho decision of tho Judges, and that tlio disqualification of tlse late, member, Mr. Vernon Reed, must stand. Rights'r > you condemned tlio unwarrantable attack made upon tho Governor by your morning contemporary on Monday, and equally unwarranted were tho aspersions on tlio Government. From the very start of their career, the members ol tlio Massey Government deliberately divested themselves of the powers political patronage held by tlio socnlled Liberals for over twenty-olio years, and by the passing of tho Public Service Act, 1012, made it an offence for any member of Parliament to use ilia position to secure appointments to, or promotions in, the Public Service. Nor should it be forgotten that, when the opportunity came to thorn to appoint members to the Upper Branch of i ■tfS'sl'iture, they preferred to givo tho Council the chance of reforming itself on an clcctive basis, and to thus give the peoplo the right to say who should represent them, before taking any steps to fill vacancies, or to make appointments that would safeguard the policy they had enunciated on the hustings. Tlio Legislative Council, composed for tho most part as it was ot Liberal nominees, rejected the Government proposals, and thus made appointments imperative. m Ail v k"' 6 soem . s to !,1 e that Mr. Vernon Reud coir.es in. According to the evidence given in connection with tho Bay of Islands petition, it was d 1 c (following tho rejection of the Reform proposals, and when tho necessity of now appointments arose), that Sir. Reed approached tho Government he was supporting, and suggested that the Bay of Islands should receive representation when such appointments were made. Ho then suggested the names of two gentlemen as appointees— Mr. J. C. Johnston and Mr. G. W. Wilkinson, tho last-named of whom had opposed him at the general election of ■ l ■'■hat, on the sworn testimony ot those giving evidence at the recont inquiry, was how Mr. Wilkinson's name came before the Government; and, assuming the offer was made to Mr. Wilkinson of a seat- in tho Upper House by Air. Massey at that time (although tho evidence does not disclose the fact), it cannot surely be contended that there was either "bribery" or "corruption" disclosed in the offer. I will go further and say that, on the reading of tho Act (despite their Honours' ruling to the contrary), no offence at lawis disclosed in such offer, always assumthat it was made. Vou, sir, aro probably aware that, under the provisions of the electoral law, and more particularly those relating to corrupt practices, an express definition is given of the term "public office (Clause 224, Scction 5), which reads"For the purposes of this Act • • . 'public office' means any office under any Act relating to local government, oi- under tho Education Act, 1008, Harbours Act, 1908, whether the office is that of Mayor, councillor, or member of any board, or is that of Town Clerk, or othor officer under a council or board, or is any other office to which a person may be elected or appointed under any ol the said Acts." Surely, sir, that definition governs the "office or place of employment" referred to in Section 2 of Clauso 215. If it does not, there is no sense in its finding a place in the Act at all, because the provisions relating to "corrupt practices" there is no mention of the term "public office" save and except ill tho definition, the word "office" only being used and then only "at elections," I havo no desire to split straws with anyone, but I do contend that they have not the right to read into the Act a meaning that it does not contain, and that, from my knowledge of the crooked ways of New Zealand Liberalism, I am bold to say it was never meant to contain.The Act, as you, sir, are aware, was passed by the -"Liberal" Government, and we know enough of its methods to bo sure that it would not deprive itself of the opportunities of bargaining for the support of its doubtful adherents; and, wore tho truth known, it would be probably found that the definition of the term "public office" was included in the Act with the express object of affording the needed loophole for the many appointments made to the Legislative Council by the Liberal Government, and which, we all know, were given as a. quid pro quo for services rendered. It would be the sheerest hypocrisy to pretend otherwise.—l am, etc., REFORMER. . Wellington, May 11, 1915.