BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 374, 8 November 1932, Page 4

BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE

i i i i In these dnll and depressing times the man who makes a really good joke and gives it a wide circulation establishes a ; strong claim upon the pnblic graj titnde. Such a service has been rendered by the Select Commit- ! tee „ appointed by the House of Representatives a month ago to | consider the breach of its privii leges which was alleged against Mr. A. Macintosh, and upon this j ground and upon the escape which under the cover of its joke it provides for the House from an impossible position, the committee is.entitled to thanks and congratulations. In other respects condolences upon the barren outcome, of a task which it should never have been asked to undertake seem to be more ap~ propriate. It was due to the delicate sensibility of the Leader of the Opposition that the inquiry was instituted into what Mr. Holland described as "definite pharges made against members of this Parliament" in the addendum attached by Mr. Macintosh to the final report of the National Expenditure Commission, of which he was a member. The vital part of the statement which in due eourse Mr. Macintosh was called upon to substantiate was as follows : — "The financial difficulties under which the Dominion is at present labouring are, in large measure, attributable to the people themselves, through their representatives in Parliament, many of whom by way of placating constituencies, and, pos^ibly, securing coni tinuity of membership1, have, year : after year, made inroads on the Treai sury for various objects, in numerous ■ instances with no prospect of an ade- , quate, or any, return on the expendij ture involved. Unpalatable though it be to thus apportion blam'e . . . it is, nevertheless, a fact that researeh and evidence prove incontestably the accuracy of this statement." We have read worse things than these about our politicians; we have perhaps written worse things ourselves — which is a very serious matter, seeing that, according to Mr. H. E. Holland, Mr. Macintosh's words "amount almost to charges of corruption" and "apply to practically every member of the House." Fortunately, however, for Mr. Holland there is much virtue in "almost" and also in "practically," and unfortunately his curiosity as to what Mr. Macintosh meant and what evidence ho relied on was not satisfied. Called upon by the committee for an explanation, Mr. Macintosh replied in a letter in which dignity, courtesy, and firmness were happily combined. "My comments," he said, "were founded on evidence of a most reliable and convincing nature; moreover, that evidence was tendered not voluntarily, but by order of the Commission under the seal of confidence, and I need. hardly state that I cannot, under any circumstances whatever, break that seal or violate the arrangement made with witnesses. Not in any defiant spirit do I say this, for I am sure you will realise that it would be unthinkable to expeet me to talce any other eourse." What Mr. Macintosh found unthinkable was not so regarded by the committee. It actually endeavoured by a personal inter■rogation to persuade him to the breach of confidence which he had so emphatically repudiated in writing. But all that it got by it was a more emphatic repudiation than before. Time was when Kings bullied Judges for decisions of which they disapproved, and if one Judge was not weak enough or corrupt enougb. to serve their purpose they got another. Judges in, their turn bullied juries for verdicts which they did not like, and even sent them to prison. We are proud to have long outgrown those barbarous and almost incredible times, yet in its essentials human nature has not changed in the interval, and the principles of law and liberty and justice remain just as they were. It is still possible for a demagogue with the latest catchwords of liberty upon his lips to play the yramt, and a democratic assem-

bly, without understanding what it is doing, may do the same. It is a great principle that Mr. Macintosh has affirmed by his stubborn refusal to betray his trust. But, as we have said, the committee has crowned the futility of its proceedings by a delightful touch of humour. Instead of confessing that it has failed because it encountered a stronger will than its own, or because itj had hold of the wrong end of the stick, or for both reasons contbined, it reports Mr. Macintosh's refusal to supply the information desired, but "while regretting that Mr. Macintosh should have taken up that attitude, recommends that in view of his advanced age no further action be taken." The benevolence of this conclusion may well send the tears coursing down the cheeks of the severest critic, but we trust that it will not be a breach of privilege to add that it is also very funny.