ADDING INSULT TO INJURY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12631, 19 October 1905, Page 4

ADDING INSULT TO INJURY.

" In order to safeguard the £100 so liberally offered our correspondent suggests that on© of the two arbiters should include the strongest and most prominent No-license advocate in the colony, Sir Robert Stout. It is not with the idea of securing the £100 Mr Grey's friend is prepared to deposit that ■ wfe return to tQie charge,, for the conditiojis imposed by Mr Grey are manifestly tap one-sided to justify us in hoping toseoure an unbiassed verdict. ; '> This is what the " Herald" said, in its issue of Tuesday evening. Yesterday;{ wo characterised this as ■". an unwaMv.raatable, outa-ageous, and positively hi-; decent reflection on the Chief Justice," and as tantamount to an allegation that Sir Robert Stout was unM-le^vt6';oc«py his high position. We added.that the only honourable course open to the " Herald" was to apologise^, to Sir Robert Stout and to its readers. Our contemporary ihas chosen to add insult to injury, and while accusing us of wilful misrepresientaitiion, and professing that it did not mean to question Sir Robert Stout's probity and integrity a3 a judge, still persiists in the wholly unjustifiable assertion that Sir Robert is incompetent, by reason of his bias, to act as ■one of two suggested arbitrators on the simple l^sue propounded by. Mt Walter-Grey. Here is what it says:— But we must be pardoned if we recall the fact that for years he was the ybrongesr, pillar of the Prohibition party in the colony, and that on the platform and in the public Press he has not hesitated to express his views on the . phase of the subject suggested for arbitration by Mr Grey. Are not all the Judges of the Supremo Court gentlemen of irreproachable character and honour, and why should not any two of them bo qualified to act. as arbiters? In specifically providing that Sir Robert Stout—an avowed partisan of. Prohibition—must bo one of the judges in this particular question, does not Mr Grey himself indirectly attribute bias to him? If not. why make this provision'/ Why not any other of the Judges? If. totexample, we had selected Sir John Logan Campbell, of Auckland—one of xNew Zealand's most prominent and most honoured citizens —as an unprejudiced arbiter on the No-license question, would the " Chronicle " have been pi"©-

pared to admit that he would not be influenced by his pp.st and present associations with the Question?. Sir John Logan Campbell's character is beyond reproach, he is a gentleman who is held in the very highest estimation throughout New Zealand; but for all that he would not be accepted as an unprejudiced arbiter on this particular question because of his recognised partisanship. In like manner only did we intend our readers to interpret our words: to interpret them as our contemporary has done is to place on them a construction never intended, and which could not honestly be deduced from them.

This, surely, is aggravating the original offence. Not only is bias specifically alk-ged as a ground for disqualification, but an attempt is made to support the allegation by argument which is at once as weak as it is ridiculous. Tho comparison cf Sir Robert Stout, the Chief Justice, and Sir John Logan Campbell, tha retired Auckland brewer, is absurd. Mr Grey choso Sir Robert Stout because lie Is the Chief Justice of the colony—not because, as a private citizen, he happens to hold opinions favourable to No-liceii.se. We do not suppose for one moniom rhat Sir Ko!u-rt Stout or any othor member of tho Supitme Court would consent to net as arbitrators in such a matter. But that is by the way. T!k, p->int is 1 hit the " Herald," assuming that Sir Robert would act as suggested by Mr G-rey. deliberately asserted that he is " too one-sided to justify us in lioping to secure an unbiassed verdict." This unqualified allegation, coupled now with the above-quoted attempt at justification, is, we contend, equivalent to a declaration that the Chief Justice is inoompstent to adjudicate upon any case in which the interests of " the trade " are involved. Such an imputat ion, we repeat, is outrageous and indecent. We have given the " Herald's " version in full. We leave our readers to judge p. sto whether we have misrepresented the facts.