THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNK 20, 1893. RESIGNATION OF THE HON. MR CADMAN.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2522, 29 June 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNK 20, 1893. RESIGNATION OF THE HON. MR CADMAN.

The result of the Cadman-Rees libel is, that though Mr C adman won the case, he feels it necessary to resign. Sir Robert Stout, who conducted the case on his behalf, iias declared that the verdict completely exonerated Mr Cadmau from the charges made against him, but this has not prevented the latter gentleman from resigning. Mr Cadman says that the report transmitted to the Press of the c 1 ony by the Press Association has represented his case unfairly, and that consequently the public have formed an opinion based on erroneous information. He therefore has considered it advisable to resign. Now the issues submitted to jury were as follows ; J. Are the publications or either of them defamatory to the plaintiff 1 Tes. 2. If so, Is the defamatory matter fair and bona fide comment on the acts and .conduct of the plaintiff ? Noth Is the defamatory matter, m far as it is not bona fide comment, trZ? e • .No. _ 4. If the defamatory matter is' neither bona fide comment nor true, what damag"’ - if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? One pound. These were the issues submitted to the jury, and the answers which the jury gave to them are set down after each question. It will be noticed that every question is answered in favour of Mr Cadman, with the exception that the amount of damages awarded is too small. If Mr Cadmau had been awarded £IOO instead of £l, the result of the case would have been looked upon as a great triumph for him, but because the jury has thought fit to make the award so small he is condemned. This appears to us illogical. Mr Cadman was or was not guilty: the jury says he was not guilty, but does not give him a sufficiently substantial verdict to conponsate him for the worry, annoyance, and expense to which he has been subjected. The grounds on which the jury decided on giving Mr Cadman such a doubtful verdict Ims not transpired, and probably never will, but it is not at all improbable that they desired to let bath sides out of the difficulty as lighty as possible. Sir Robert Stout states that in his opening address lie said that Mr Cadman did not desire to get heavy damages, ho merely sought to clear himself of the charges made against him. If so, a great mistake was made in the first, place in suing for such heavy damages. Mr Cadman ought to have sued for 40s, as Mr Hutchison did in Wanganui last year, and if he had done so ho would have got the verdict for the full amount, and that would have satisfied pnbUo opinion, Wfio can till

but, that the knowledge that Mr Cadman did not desire heavy damages influenced the decision of the jury. They may have said : “Mr Rees has already been put to great expense in defending this action, and that is enough for him. Mr Cadman is a Minister in receipt of a good salary, let him pay hia own expense. The verdict clears his character of any imputation of wrong-doing, and that is good enough for him.” That may have been the grounds on which the jury argued and found their verdict, and of course in such a case it meant complete exoneration for Mr Cadman. They may, however, have considered that Mr Cadman had sailed so near the wind that though they could not find him guilty there was room for doubt in his case. If the verdict was returned on that basis it is certainly no great triumph for Mr Cadman, but we are rather inclined to the idea that the jury aimed at letting off both sides as lightly as possible. It is asserted that the public have not had sufficiently correct information supplied to them through the Press Association, and consequently we do not care to give expression to a decided opinion on the subject. It has, however, been made abundantly clear that Mr Cadman had some interest in the native land transactions, but that is not a crime, and that is not what he was charged with. The gravamen of the charge Mr Rees preferred against Mr Cadman was: that Mr Cadman made use of his position to delay the passing of measures dealing with native lands in order that he and his partner, Mr Smith, M.H.R., might have been able to purchase a block of native land on terms more advantageous than they could do if the measures referred to had became law. Mr Rees alleged that this was the reason native laud legislation was delayed, and hence the whole thing. Now Sir Robert Stout is reported in the Otago Daily Times to have said that the laud in question was not ordinary native laud at all, that it was laud hold under a freehold tenure, the title to which was under the Land Transfer Act, and that consequently it could not have been affected by any native laud law. If that is true the whole thing is settled, and Mr Cadman has been badly treated, lie has been the victim of the stupidity of the jury, who allowed his libeller to escape too easliy. In support of this we find that Captain Russell, who is strongly opposed to the present Government, said last Tuesday in his place in Parliament “ That he had taken a political interest in the whole matter, and that tie felt bound to say that Mr Cadman had done nothing to impede native legislation.” Captain Russell has been a member of Parliament while Mr Cadman has been Native Minister; he lives in the Hawke’s Bay district, and was a witness in the Napier Court during the recent trial; he is a strong political opponent of the present Government, and yet his verdict is that Mr Cadman is innocent. It appears to us that Captain Russell’s opinion is of the greatest value, for he had every opportunity for forming a correct judgement, and no temptation to err on the side of Mr Cadman. For these reasons it appears to us that Mr Cadman is innocent of wrong-doing. It may bo that Mr Smith used his name without his knowledge—and there is sworn evidence to that effect—but we feel tolerably certain that Mr Cadman made no corrupt use of his position to secure benefit to himself. Native land laws were not passed certainly, but some forty or fifty bills, if not more, had to be dropped last session, because of the obstructive tactics of the Opposition, and there was nothing at all extraordinary in the fact that the native land bills went the way of the rest. However, Mr Cadman has suffered, be has resigned his seat in the Cabinet and in the House, and has placed himself in the hands of his constituents, who will, we feel sure, return him again in triumph. He has done the right thing, for if he had remained in the Ministry he would have been submitted to insult by the small wits of the Opposition, who are unscrupulous enough to use any means to annoy an opponent.