Untitled

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 6 March 1912, Page 2

PRIVILEGE AND PERVERSITY.. "What is Parliament privilege ? It is the right of ovary Parhatarian to be protected against unfair attacks on his honour. That implies the readiness of every Parlitarian to reputee such attacks when made on himself, and to do his utmost to help his collegues of Parliament to do the same in their case. It also means the readiness of every Pavrliatarian to assist on adequate full enquriry into every case of alleged dishonour. Let us apply these princi* pals to the now notorious Payne case. When Mr Payne intimated to the Opposition lea ier that he did not intend to keep his pledge, the Leader ought to have imu/ediateiy pointed out that lie should rett?r the matter to the constituency, which having accepted, him ou certain terms, aloue could absolve him. That wouid have been the right tiling. But Mr Massey preferred to tell Mr Payne that he had written information that he had been squared by the Liberals ; und this subsequently got tacked on to a statement that the price was £500 or £10^0, and had been paid or promised to be paid in a certain event by Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Vigor-Brown. The secoud is probably an figgravation of the fiist, but it is only necessary for the understanding of the position to consider the first. Mr Massey, as an honourable man and a good Parliatarian, had the right to face Mr Payne with the charge he possessed iv writing. It was in fact his duty as Leader to so face him. But his duty did not end there. It extended to his statement of the name of his authority. To with! old. the. name is to prevent the charge from being investigated, alter being lauuoued on its career as a detainer. True, Mr Massey did not make anything, public till asked to do so by Mr Payne;-

WhyMr Payne did not do his manifest duty of insisting on the publican tion the moment he was aware of the charge against him, is Mr Payne's eifair, It is for him to explain why the brightness cf honour which -shone so greatly in the House was somewhat dimmed in the interview with Mr Massey. But that doesn't obsolve Mr Massey from handing over the name and all the information in his possession when he made the charge public in Parliament. To excise the name of the writer in so serious a matter, is to descend to the level ol anumymous accusation; and there is nothing in the world meaner than anonymous accusation. Mr Massey ought to have used the information given him either entirely or not at all. By using it partially he has laid himself open to a malodorous comparison with anonymous defamers, which he certainly does not deserve, and to the charge, of intimidation by bluff, which may be correct. In either case the use of such a weapon in support of such a charge by a man not - prepared to stand the brunt must be pronounced a grave error.