The Hastings Standard Published Daily. WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1896. ROYAL COMMISSIONS.

Hastings Standard, Issue 15, 13 May 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1896. ROYAL COMMISSIONS.

For the cause that lacks assistance. For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The value of the reports of Royal Commissions is invariably in inverse ratio to their cost. Now and again the subject matter dealt with by a Royal Commission may lend itself to be treated by such a body, but generally the thing to be examined or the reason for this or that, the theory to be established or what else, is lost in the ponderous mass of irrelevant and socalled evidence. The members of Royal Commissions appear r< be afflicted with a complete inability u- distinguish between mere opinion and absolute knowledge, su th-a, tuoir pro ceedings are apt to degenerate into stupidity. The mode of p rondure varies with each and thore is no certainty that the mode agreed upon nf thn nnaainii "* a fiomiaissiqb

will be continued to the end. Sometimes the Commissions endeavour to work on a basis which is a modified form of Supreme Court procedure, but instances of this are few and far be-, tween. The Horowhenua Commission, which had for its chairman a Stipendiary Magistrate, conducted its proceedings somewhat after the style of a Court of Justice. Royal Commissioners are generally allowed a free hand in the methods of obtaining evidence, in examining and cross-examining witnesses, and it is to this freedom is due the fact that the labour.-; of a Commission are unduly prolonged through the hearing of unnecessary opinions of those who flatter themselves that they are giving evidence. The people who have solid facts to adduce are generally few in number, but the busy-bodies with theories and ideas are plentiful, and these appear to delight in airing their alleged evidence before Commissions. This is not the way evidence is procured for a Court of Justice. Either a plaintiff or defendant will take care to make some preliminary enquiry as to whether a proposed witness knows anything of the facts relating to the case to be tried. The Royal Commission enquiring into the Brunner mine disaster appears to have given offence to the people from the start. The exclusion of the Press is on the face of it stupid, but the action is characteristic of men with powers that are virtually autocratic. The holding of the enquiry at Greymouth instead of at Brunnerton, where most of the witnesses reside, is another cause for discontent; but in this matter there is no appeal from the decision of the Commissioners, who probably think that in the large centre more witnesses with opinions to air can bo obtained than if the enquiry was held at the scene of the disaster. There is the possibility that the Royal Commission will miss the point for which it is searching in the quantity and quality of the opinions and e.r jiartr statements of experts, and instead of clearing up a mystery they will make it more mysterious than before. Royal Commissions, except in rare instances, are valueless, but are always costly, and we fancy the colony has had a surfeit of these high-priced enquiry boards.