THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1908. A COMPENSATION QUESTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3077, 23 December 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1908. A COMPENSATION QUESTION.

It will probably come as a considerable surprise to many people that Cabinet, after careful consideration, has decided not to pay any compensation in connection with the wrongful conviction for perjury of the men, Olaf Hallinen, and the late Anders Andersen. The facts of the case are well-known, and arose in certain judicial proceedings, the outcome of the murder of a man named Burke at Westport. Both Hallinen and Andersen, the latter being in a delicate state of health, were subjected to the suspense of prosecution, and were sentenced to seven years' hard labour, knowing that they were innocent of the <u'ime imputed to them. Several months of the sentence were actually served before Connelly, the man who confossed to killing Bourke, made a confession, which completely established the

innocence of both Hallinen and Andersen. Admittedly, the wrongfully convicted men must have suffered most intensely. Their indignation at the injustice of their sentences may he referred to, but scarcely described. A great deal of public sympathy is, no doubt, ielt for the victims of the unfortunate occurrence, but do these facts constitute any reason at all why the Government should pay a sum of money by way of compensation? In Westport the feeling evidently is that compensation should be paid, for a telegram states that the decision of the Cabinet will be the subject of a strong local petition. When one thinks of compensation for wrongfully convicted persons the Meikle case is found to be yet ?resh in the memory, and everyone knows what the House did with the compensation grant which Cabinet proposed to make to Meikle. Whatever course the Government adopts in such matters it should be consistent. Compensation should either be paid to all innocent persons convicted of crime, or to none —extraneous matters should not be introduced i.nto guch a question. Many an interestfag aVgiViusht Cotild be advanced oit ik Subject. Without, however, attempting to "go into the question," it may be pointed out that it is a jury of his fellow countrymen who convict an accused person sentenced, and not the Government. The Government, however, sees that the accused per- 1 son receives an absolutely fair trial, and pays a most highly trained and humane judicial officer to preside over the Court in which serious charges are heard. In prosecuting upon reasonable evidence of guilt the Government, or the Crown, is plainly doing its manifest duty in the interests of the people. Is the Government to pay compensation for doing its duty? By no stretch of the imagination can the Government be blamed for the wrongful conviction of Hallinen and- Andersen* The case is certainly an interesting one.