THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1244, 25 July 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1872.

Until yesterday the course intended to be taken by the O'Gonor Petition Committee was not ascertained. None of the West Coast members -had received summonses to attend as witnesses before the Committee, nor was there any knowledge of the probable' extent or character of the inquiry. It was learnt, however, that Mr T. B. Gillies had been appointed chairman of the Committee, and to that gentleman one of the West Coast members of the Nelson Council transmitted a telegraphic message, respectfully demanding that no decision ■ should bo. come to until he had been called upon to give evidence on a matter which quite as much affects him and all the other members for the Coast as it does one particular member, Mr O'Conor. The message was as follows : —

" I beg to represent to you as chairman of the O'Conor Petition Committee, and for submission to the Committee, the fact that in the Nelson ß.M. Court the said O'Conor sued me for one hundred pounds damages, for unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, arid in the capacity of member of the Nelson Council, conspiring to injure him, and that he failed to proceed with the suit solely on the plea that he intended to bring the same into a higher Court. Also that the petition before , the Committee, framed and presented by him, raises the question of discreditable conduct by the Nelson Councillor?, of whom I am one. Further, that Bince the presentation of the petition O'Conor has caused a letter to be published, in which he repeats that he is the victim of a murderous and cowardly conspiracy, and in unmistakeable connection, therewith mentions my name. I, therefore, respectfully submit that the Committee defer their decision until such charges, and the consequent question of damages, are investigated in a court of justice, or until the Committee have called for and received my evidence."

By a private telegram since received we learn that, previous to this application being made, the "Select Committee had decided to notify to each member of the Provincial Council that the Committee is willing to hear them in re O'Conor." It must be confessed that this is very gracious on the part of the Committee — very. Because one out of nineteen members of a Provincial Council happens to be a member of the House of Representatives, and because a public request, anything but spontaneous, is made for an inquiry into his conduct and into certain charges which he chooses to make against his' fellow-members in the inferior body, ergo the Committee is "willing" that each Of the. eighteen others' shall proceed to Wellington at his own personal outlay, and probably remain there till the Greek Kalends, for the purpose of demonstrating that they are innoceufc of the accusations made against them — accusations which are not based upon evidence, as in the case of the individual member. Such an offer, we venture to think and fear, is not one which will be readily accepted by even a minority of the members of the Council, and there seem to us to be substantial reasons for the majority treating this " willingness to hear" as an exceedingly amiable but worthless proposal. If there is to be an inquiry into the conduct of the Council collectively or individually, there is propriety in that inquiry being thorough and searching, and it would be fairer, to all parties if the case had, on either side, been brought before the tribunals which are specially established and adapted for deciding disputes between man and man — our ordinary courts of justice. The question would then have come before judges who would be above the possibly groundless suspicion of political bias ; the course of procedure would be regularly defined by precedent and practice ; and each party would be compelled to bear his own costs, or be enabled to obtain the Bame, or equivalent satisfaction, from him against whom a verdict might be given. Notwithstanding the concurrence of the Government of the Province in the proceedings of the Council in this particular case, and in the propriety of defending to the end the righteousness of their aggregate action, it scarcely falls to them to undertake the unauthorised expenditure which such a defence would involve. The House of Representatives has, by its own act, initiated this inquiry on the plea, we presume, of it being pro bono publico, and if its members assume • judicial functions, they should proceed in judicial manner by compelling, under such penalties as they may be able to impose, r the attendance of witnesses, maintaining the relationships to those witnesses . which are usually borne in inquiries on behalf of the Crown. Such an inquiry before such a tribunal is in itself anomalous, but the anomaly will be aggravated by any partial investigation being made, and no other result can arise if the attendance of witnesses is not compulsory, and their examination betore the Committee as complete arid exhaustive as possible. The cost would be considerable, no doubt, but having, more benevolently than judiciously, taken . upon itself to pursue what we cannot otherwise characterise than an .inquiry preliminary to cross-actions for libel, the , House .must either abandon its self-elected functions, or continue tncarry them out at any cost — at the cost of the money of the country, and inevitably at the cost of all the principles which rule our courts of equity and law. ' '