BAUME’S RELEASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 44, 16 November 1926, Page 8

BAUME’S RELEASE

MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY OPPOSED THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION A MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKING

Further statements in connection with the Baume release case were made yesterday. Adhering to his claim for a full investigation, the Rev. Howard Elliott elaborated the reasons for his opposition to the Magisterial inquiry, and referred among other considerations to the question of privilege. In reply, the Minister of Justice (Hon. F. J. Rolleston) states that the question of privilege will not be raised by the Department, and that no obstacle will be erected to the production of any facts or evidence relative to the inquiry.

The Rev. Howard Elliott replies as follows to the second Ministerial statement which appeared in yesterday’s Dominion

“The Minister of Justice has apparently not taken into consideration certain facts which are obvious to the general public and myself. They are that in appointing a Magistrate, however, respected and able, to make the inquiry, the Minister has appointed one who is dependent upon the Minister’s goodwill for his position. A Magistrate holds no tenure of office, and bis appointment mav be terminated at any time, at the will of the Minister. Further, Magistrates are graded, and promotion from one grade to another depends upon the Minister. It is the administration of the Prisons Department, for which the Minister is responsible, that is to be inquired into, and, therefore, it would be expecting something rather more than our poor human nature is likely to give that such an inquiry would not be influenced by considerations which are so apparent. QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE. “Furthermore, at a Magisterial inquiry the Department is entitled to plead privilege, and this interposes an effectual bar to my securing certain evidence; and, in addition, should it be necessary to call officials of the Department, there would be no protection such as would be afforded under a Royal Commission. Again, my own position would be invidious and unprotected, and I would expose myself to the spite or fury of persons against which I would have no cover except in defending myself through the expensive processes of the court. Under a Royal Commission the position would be quite different, and would afford me an untrammelled opportunity of bringing out the facts; whereas under the inquiry proposed by the Minister I would be like the psalmist of old, ‘beset behind and before.’ So that if I had contemplated acquiescing in the Minister's proposed inquiry, which I never did, the actual position effectual! v precludes mv doing SO. “I repeat that the public is gravely concerned with the administration of justice under the Reform Government. Nothing has occurred for many years in connection with the administration of justice wheih has so seriously disturbed public opinion and confidence in the administration of the Justice Department; and the Minister is taking the very course which will perpetuate the distrust, and leave suspicion and doubt and strong resentment in the public mind. I suggest to the Minister that Mackay’s record whilst in prison affords the most complete and overwhelming proof that he was not a fit and proper person, to be released, even though a condition of the release was that he leave this country. The story of the influence brought to bear to secure what amounts to a free pardon for Baume is alarming; and all who are friends of the humane and beneficent legislation introduced m 1910, and since developed, to reform men and women who have erred, recognise that the administration of these provisions of the Legislature have, in the instances under review, been reduced to a travesty.

NO SHIRKING OF RESPONSIBILITY

“I am actuated solely by a sense of public duty in bringing this matter to an issue. I can derive no personal benefit from it, but incidentally am subjected to a great deal of criticism and abuse. Nevertheless, I will not shirk the responsibility if the Minister will set up a Royal Commission of ’Jidependent persons to investigate, all of the charges, including the appointment of the Controller-General, in whom Me Minister says he has confidence, but can have little knowledge concerning him as an administrator. <4 I reiterate that I will not, so far as I am concerned, allow these great issues to be sunk out of sight bv a feeble attempt at camouflage in the form of a Magisterial inquiry into breaches of gaol regulations. "So that for all real and practical purposes, should the inquiry be held, it will be worthies’, and can onlv be used in an attempt to publicly white-wash defects tn administration. That is extremelv undesirable. On these. considerations the public will draw its own conclusions.” MINISTER'S REPLY NO OBSTACLES TO BE RAISED. In the following terms the Minister of Justice (Hon. F. J. Rolleston) replied last night to the statement of the Rev. Howard Elliott: — “I have no comment to make on the above The necessary arrangements have been made and the inquiry will proceed before Mr. W. G. Riddell, 5..1., in the course of a few days. “The Department will raise no question of privilege, and will raise no obstacle to the production of any facts or evidence relative to the inquiry.”