WARD-HINE INCIDENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 53, 26 October 1912, Page 2

WARD-HINE INCIDENT.

O (Hawera Star.) The sequel to the Hine-Ward incident at the Public Accounts Committee may (for New Zealand) be described as the parliamentary, though not the political, event of the week. In using the language which he admits having used, Sir Joseph Ward was clearly in the wrong. It was unparliamentary, and seriously violated the rules of procedure. According to these rules, it should not have been used, even under provocation, and, attention having been directed to it, it should have been Withdrawn, without qualification, on the merit or demerit, of its irregularity. This is, we think, a correct description of the position, from the technical standpoint.

But technicality is not, or should not be, everything, even in parliamentary procedure. A verbal breach in this connection may be less reprehensible than a deficiency in courtesy or an indication of the presence of antagonism in the mental mood, attitude, or atmosphere of the other party to any given incident, and, taking the evidence as it stands, and as a whole, these characteristics might, it seems, be fairly ascribed to Mr Hine’s conduct, as chairman of the committee, in its relation to Sir Joseph Ward at the time of the incident. It would, therefore, have been seemly in him to have expressed regret for the moral provocation h© had given to Sir Joseph, and to have done so frankly at the outset. Had he done this, and it appears that morally he should have done it, there is not the slightest doubt that Sir Joseph would, with equal frankness, and in the fullest and handsomest manner, have apologised for his inadmissible words, and unreservedly withdrawn them. After all, Sir Joseph Ward is—though entitled to no more latitude than any other member—not unentitled to a little extra consideration. In his character as a party politician, we are opposed to him, but he has been in Parliament for a quarter of a century, was for more than five years Premier of the Dominion, and, personally, he has many excellent qualities. The attitude of his opponents towards him—and especially of an opponent in a position like that occupied by Mr Hine as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—should have no suggestion of provocation in it; in fact, it should be impossible to suspect it of such a suggestion. Neither Sir Joseph nor his friends, however, nor the country can, we should think, be otherwise than satisfied with the studious moderation and gracefulness of the Prime Minister’s resolution: “That this House expresses regret that the member for Awarua has not thought proper to withdraw the words taken down and reported to the House by the Public Accounts Committee.” As a matter of procedure, Mr Massey had to move some resolution. He could not formally, in express terms, directly or indirectly, censure his own appointee, Mr Hine, nor could Sir Joseph Ward’s breach of the rules be passed unnoticed; but the Government, through its chief, sums the position up in the politest and least offensive manner possible—quite in the style of Pope’s Belinda, who, in giving a lover her final refusal, sent him away charmed with her and delighted with himself. After all, the age of chivalry is not gone; Mr Massey’s Hine-Ward inci-j dent motion smacks of it very agreeably.