INCONSISTENCY.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13528, 9 November 1911, Page 4

INCONSISTENCY.

A. most glaring example of ir consistency is shown by Mr Massey in his references to special remuneration to Judges of the Supreme Court. Last night ir the course of his speech the loader of the Opposition said: “I do not attack Sir Robert Stout; nobody has done so. But what I do say is that even if Sir Robert Stout is the most honest and straightforward man in New Zealand—l do not say he is not—these payments aro improper." As our readers will gather, the remarks apply to the unwarrantable insinuations originally made by Mr James Allen, chief lieutenant of Mr Massey, that the Fountain of Justice was being polluted by Sir Robert Stout’s acceptance of emoluments as a member of the Native Laud Commission and as one of thoso- who consolidated the statutes. Speaking at Hamilton some mouths ago. Mr Alien stated that, the. “Government had not acted cleanly in those administering the law,” and later on at Auckland ho attempted to justify the charge of improper conduct levelled against the Ministry by saying that a Judge might be influenced “unconsciously” by special payments made in connection with services rendered to the community on commissions. In illustration of his meaning he reminded his audience that the Chief Justice had declined to inquire into the Hine charges, on the ground that no breach of the law had been disclosed. “The Chief Justice,”. Mr Allen added, “was a member of the Statutes Compilation Commission, which cost tho Dominion £5626, of which he received a very, considerable share; and he was also a member

of the Native Lands Commission, which co§t J?842. .Is it not a fair thing to say . that, either consciously or unconsciously, the Chief Justice'was influenced by tho fact that ho had' been appointed to these Commissions by the Government and that large sums of money had got into pocket from these commissions?” Surely there can be ho'mistaking tho meaning or the gravity ~of the, implication conveyed by the words, and yet Mr Massey had the effrontery fo declare at Pukekohe last night that nobody had attacked Sir Ilobcrt Stout. The leader of the Opposition must surely think the electors of the Dominion are afflicted with bad memories, for he himself has reflected, on the integrity of the Supreme Court Judges, and openly attacked Sir Robert Stout,.us instance the discussion in the House -’on the Cook Islands Commission. Speaking in the House during the disfeussion oh the report of the Commissioh, Mr Jilassey protested against tho appointment of, the Chief Justice to make such inquiries as have recently taken place, and went on to say-(we quote from Hansard):

I would like to go back to this report which is under discussion; md here I would like to say—and I say it again with r( .g rc t—I have read- it this afternoon as carefully as time would permit, and I say it is the report of an advocate rather than of a Judge. It is the report the counsel for the defence. An Hon. Member—Shame. Mr Massey—Yes, 1 say it is a shame. It is a shame it is, the report of the counsel for the defence rather than the report of an independent Commissioner. The Hon. Mr Fowlds—ls that the way to talk of your Judges? Mr Massey—The Judges are not abovo criticism. Yet last night Mr Massey said that neither he nor anyone else attacked Sir Robert Stout. Evidently members of the House thought otherwise, for we find Mr Lauronson saying in the same debate (again wc quote from Hansard): If there is a charge of; corruption, if theiA'is a charge of wrong-doing, then by all 'manner of means oring that charge clean-cut and defined on , the floor of the House and make it, and '.back it up by your evidence. But by innuendo, by the slander that walks in darkness and which comes in and stabs a man "in the back—by that means to attempt, to belittle and defame -jour; Judges is a crime ugnipst evefy ; man, and woman, and child in tho Dominion. I guarantee there is not a'man even on the Opposition benches who doe» not in his heart agree with that sentiment. And yet. wo have the leader of the Opposition, and wc have his chief lieutenant, on tho platform and here in Parliament, reiterating innuendoes and .charges of the most scandalous nature against the Chief Justice. . . . A fierce attack has been made upon the Chief Justice, and in tho course ■of their remarks the honourable member for Hruce. Mr Allen, and the leader of tho Opposition have referredta the Chief Justice’s report upon the Hjne charges- as a proof of - his > iucompetency and lack of impartiality. ■ Mr Laurenson went on to quote a number of the leading newspapers of the Dominion, including the Otago Daily Times (the Opposition journal in Dunedin), which had taken Mr Massey severely to task lor that which ho now denies he or anyone else did. Tho mSniber for Xyttelton also quoted instances where Judges of tho Supreme Court had been to hold similar Commissions of Inquiry, and concluded: ”

I would like at this stage to make a 9 'quotation from Mr Berries* when ho was addressing the House on the question of appointing a Commission to investigate the Hinc charges. Speaking to the House, he said this when asking for Judges to inquire into the matter; “Because wo want the thing inquired into impartially, without apy shade of party feeling in the matter." And then he wont on to emphasise that what li& wanted was a Judge of the Supremo Court to conduct tlig., inquiry. Now, when the Government says "We will give you an inquiry in this case by a Judge of the Supremo Court,” and when a report from such an authority comes down, the' very men who have demanded this inquiry are the first to condemn it. For instance, here is Mr Allen, who in. Volume 152, page 111, of Hansard is reported as saying—“We want to get an honest and square vote upon the question as to whether impartial Judges of the Supremo, Court are to conduct this inquiry, or whether it is to'be conducted by a biased Parliamentary Committee."