THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume II, Issue 33, 12 August 1899, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1899THE great Marine Scandal has come and gone. Its exit is not as clear and absolutely beyond reproach as the people would have liked. The ultimate decision rested on the fact that Mr Glasgow and Mr Allport, officers of the Marine Department, suffered from a lapse of memory of what had occured some eighteen months previously. Mr HallJones explained his famous memo as a mer« aid to memory. Mr Glasgow and Mr Allport now state that the former brought the memo. — &peaking of it as an order — under the Ministers' notice and that he told the secretary for Marine to proceed with the examination, as he (the Minister) had had a conversation with Captain Allman. Neither of these officials recollected this incident when they were censured at the beginning of the year for misconduct in acting on an unsigned undated memo. We must say that most people will consider this forgetfulness extraordinary, in view of the fact that a sharp stimulus, in the way of a censure was applied. The Commissioners have accepted the Minister's denial rather than the officials' re-statement of the history of the case. This is an unfortunate position. The ardent oppositionist see 3 in this nothing but the blind prejudice of the Bench. The Government supporter sees nothing but a complete vindication of the Minister. The opposition - naturally argue that a defective memory in two witnesses does

not prove tnern to De ijars, and that two witnesses are better than one. The Ministerial sympathisers, considerably to their credit, be it said, cast no insinuations on the integrity of Messrs Glasgow and Allport, but regard their memory as defective. 'Taking u perfectly calm and unprejudiced view, we do not think that the mistakes made by these gentlemen — unfortunate as it must be j for the wholesouled oppositionists — could lead to no other result thevn a breakdown of the prosecution. It is not the least unreasonable, nor yet improbable that a fancy of their own, or a suggestion fvoni an outsidei\ being constantly revolved in the minds of men suffering from the worry and tension of the last six months, in connection with the heated controversies yuvroundrag this unfortunate affair ( should take a definite shape, and grow from a mere si^gestion into a firm belief. Lawyers are well acquainted with the fact that the absolute contradictions of, popularly speaking, reliable witnesses, in the box under oath are distortions of truth unconsciously, and therefore not dishonestly produced by people who, by frequent repetition, and by careless alterations in the statement of fact, grow to have complete confidence in ihe exact truth of their side of the story. In addition to this there was a great conflict of evidence between Mr Allport and Captain Allman, as to who brought the memo from the Minibter to the office. Mr HallJones said he gave the memo to Captain AHman. The latter says he did'nt, but Mr Homeman, the Minister's secretary, brought it down to- Mr Allport, and gave it to him, in his ( Captain Allman 's ) presence. Mr Horneman absolutely denies this, while Mr Allport says that Captain Allman delivered the memo, himself ! No wonder the Commissioners declined to crack that nut ! Nevertheless, it is all perfectly plain that Captain Fairctiild sufficiently impressed the Premier on his way to Auckland to send a telegram likely to influence the Minister of Marine, and owing to the sad death of Captain Fairchild we will never learn whether the Captain interceded for Jones, or the Premier extracted from the Captain a recommendation sufficient on which to ba&e a good broad hint to his subordinate Minister. So far, therefore, as the eAidence has disclosed — after being weighed — little more than the judges have indicated — a hxity and weakness on the part of Mr Hall-Jones. If his sins were greater, it is certainly remarkable how the prosecution failed to sheet them home. Now a final word as to the method of enquiry. The methods in this case are brought into strong con-

trast with those adopted in the Wrigg cross decoration squabble, , by the fact that the^ Petitions Committee in this connection reported adversely to the Govern-' 1 ment on the same day that Judge Ward and Dr Giles delivered their decision on the Marine Enquiry. If a committee elected by the House had been appointed, there would have been the usual struggle to get a majority of each paity's nominees selected. As it is the appointment of Royal Commissioners took the matter out of the hands of the House, and comments derogatoiy to their independence have been freely bandied about. These are circumstances in which the spirit of the Elective Executive should be followed, and men elected to act judicially, distinguished for their honour and sense of fair play rather than abilities as partisans or as pillars of strength in debate. The Premier rejected the committee and appointed a Royal Commission. He did this because he was afraid of the partiality of a committee. If this is so, it is a fine sample of the inordinate length to which mens petty pai'tisan bias 'will lead them. If this is not the reason, then the Premier had no right to appoint a commission. The Premier and Minister of Marine were the accused persons, and the House as representatives of the people had tiie right to say by what means they should be tried. Ii: the House decided a commission was fair to the accused' — the House should have said who were to constitute that commission. That persons on trial should nominate their own judges is a ridiculous incongruity in a democratic country. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the lawyers elicited all the evidence required, and the -people and the press can form their own judgments independent of the Commissioners. The result -has been that any serioua degree of guilt, has not been proved against either Minister — but the judgment would have had greater weight if the accused had allowed the House to decide who should try them.