The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5165, 11 October 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1877.

We stated in our issue of yesterday, in reference to the Rogan-Wilson inquiry, that the select committee of the Legislative Council particularly refrained from expressing an opinion as to whether or not the Ministry of the day acted rightly or wrongly in dismissing Mr. Wilson from the public service. That Mr. Wilson was dismissed in a very summary manner, after a Royal Commission had investigated his charges against Judge Rogan, is tolerably well known. Mr. Rogan was accused by Mr. Wilson of having acted partially and illegally in respect to judicial decisions relating to lands on the East Coast. These chaiges were embodied in a report furnished by Mr. Wilson to the Government last session. The accusations were considered of such a grave nature that Sir Julius Yogel and Sir Donald McLean contended, in the face of much opposition, that it would be unfair to the gentleman accused, to have the report published until an opportunity was given him of replying to the charges made. It was long after those ugly allegations had been circulated that Judge Rogan received a copy of them. He was, until then, in utter ignorance of their nature, and in a moment of irritation he wrote a letter on the subject to a newspaper. For writing this letter Judge Rogan has been justly censured by the Government, because by so doing he broke the rules of the Civil Service. But the select committee, apparently deeming the condemnation of that act by the Government insufficient, must needs deal again with the question, and for the second time Judge Rogan has been censured for the publication of that letter. But it matters little. It was the only trump card Mr. J. A, Wilson had to play, and ho played it twice, because the select committee of the Council permitted him to do so. The Royal Commissioners, after three weeks’ arduous examination into the whole question, reported that “ with the exception of the unfortunate letter written to the paper they know of nothing Mr. Rogan has done unbecoming his position as a Judge.” The select committee also report, after disposing of the question of the publication of the letter, “ that your committee consider that the issue simply is whether Mr. Rogan did or did not act legally” in respect to certain deeds. As a legal question was involved the committee very properly declined to give any expression of opinion upon the matter. The charges of corruption against Judge Rogan fade away like the morning mist. Notwithstanding the emphatic, character of the charges contained in Mr. Wilson’s report, that gentleman has the calm assurance to state that throughout the “ whole of the unhappy case” the great mistake has been that it was thought he attributed corrupt motives to Judge Rogan. He said he did nothing of the sort, and the committee also state that no j ust grounds had been disclosed for such an accusation. So far we know what the committee’s decision is with regard to Mr. Rogan. The committee, it seems, were so absorbed with this side of the case that they apparently lost sight of the actual object for which they were appointed. The report they have brought up has been read by more than one person who has vainly endeavored to know why Mr. Wilson no longer swells the ranks of the Civil Service. The rpportof the committee throws no light upon the subject. In fact, there is a “ to-be-continued-in-our-next” tone in the report that is unsatisfactory, and shows its incompleteness. The committee state that they allowed Mr. Wilson the utmost latitude in presenting his case. No blame therefore can be attachable to him for the unfinished state of the report. Mr. Wilson, we believe, did all in his power to facilitate the efforts of the committee in the task they had before them. He brought three Maori witnesses from the East Coast to give evidence on his behalf. The committee, it is true, did not avail itself of much of the native testimony as to Mr. Wilson’s wrongful dismissal, probably because the evidence appeared to break down under cross examination. It therefore follows that, with the exception of legal points, which the committee said they declined to deal with,

the allegations made by Mr. J. A. Wilson fall through. Had the report been published last year, as was strenuously urged by many bon. members, the charges against Government officers would have been' promulgated throughout the colony, and an ex parte statement would have gone forth damaging to the characters of Judge Hogan, Mr. Lqcke, and other officers, which a future refutation or retraction would not have set right. Sir George Grey said in the House last year that “if the accusations were unfounded ” the officers against whom they were made “would come out more triumphantly than ever.” From what wo have said it will be perceived that further comment is unuecesary. Mr. Wilson failed as a land purchaser, failed as an accuser against Judge Rooan before the Royal Commission, failed to better his case before the select committee, and in our opinion he has failed to establish any valid claim for compensation for loss of office. The Evening Post differs from our view of the Rooan-Wilson inquiry. The Evening Post remains true to its purblind instincts, otherwise it would be able to see that the committee’s finding is that Mr. Rogan was wrong in one particular only, namely, publishing the letter, and that after hearing the evidence of the Hon. Mr. Ormond it expressed no opinion as to the justice or injustice of Mr. Wilson’s removal from the Civil Service. Had it been found that Mr. Wilson had been improperly dismissed, the committee would doubtless have recommended the Government to reappoint him to some other district.