SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1929. DOMINIONS AND CROWN.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 272, 16 November 1929, Page 8

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1929. DOMINIONS AND CROWN.

THE ELSIE WALKER CASE.

Now'that it lias become necessary to select a Governor-General for New Zealand as well as for Australia, the whole question of these appointments has a special interest for the Dominion and the Commonwealth. The proposal that a colonial public man should be chosen for such positions has often been discussed, but in Australia it has been entertained more seriously since the Labour Government took office. For the cry for a "local product" to fill the post of State Governor, or even cf Governor-General, is particularly popular among the Australian workers, and it is not likely that they will lose the opportunity of impressing their view upon the Imperial authorities through the agency of Mr. Seullin. It may be worth pointing out that, according to the authorities on constitutional law, there is no reason why a local personage should not be nominated as governor of a State. But since 1926 the Governor-General of a Dominion has been officially designated as "the personal representative of His Majesty," and it is doubtful if a suggestion to elevate a "colonial" to a post of such eminence would be welcomed at Home. The attitude of the Crown toward this question is particularly interesting just noAV because of the rumour that the Federal Labour Party intends to move for the appointment of a local Governor-General. It has been stated more or less officially that "the King will be guided by his Australian Ministers," but it is not likely that they will take action without learning something about His Majesty's opinions on this point beforehand.

But whatever be the difficulties of the situation, and however they may be solved, i: is important to understand clearly the reasons and motives that underlie the movement operating in Australia, and to some extent in New Zealand, in favour of a local GovernorGeneral. The principal causes seem to be dissatisfaction because the highest office in the State has hitherto'been beyond the reach of even the. most eminent and capable "colonial," and resentment arising, out of the conviction tjiat official? imported from Home, however distinguished or able they may be, can never get tho colonial point of view, and can never wholly sympathise with the aspirations and ideals of the people of "the Empire oversea." There is something to be said for both these arguments, and more especially for the latter; but the alternative policy certainly presents difficulties of its own. In the first place, we may well doubt if a •position of such dignity and authority can be thrown open, in any sense, to public competition /' without seriously disorganising the political and public life of the country. The experience of the Americans does not suggest that. results thus secured are the best attainable. And, quite apart from the dangers that may be entailed upon the State by ' unscrupulous and the pressure of vested interests, where such a prize is at stake, it is certain that there would be almost insuperable difficulties in the way of ensuring freedom from political or local bias and absolute impartiality in the case of any "colonial" raised to such high authority. In the case of a nominated GovernorGeneral, there is no theoretical reason why the Crown in. making such an appointment should not select the "colonial" candidate indicated by the Dominion Government concerned. But if such officials are to be nominees, there are obvious advantages in a system which supplies as the visible Head of the State, and the sign and symbol of Royalty, some distinguished and experienced "servant of the Empire" invested with a large share of Imperial dignity and removed far above the local and political jealousies and rivalries that so frequently convulse colonial public life. Assuredly, the Governor-General under the present system is a far more effective "bond of Empire" than any "local product" could hope to be; and we incline to the belief that the ingenious suggestion of Mr. Tielman Roos, that the Dominions should-be converted into "kingdoms under sovereigns from the Royal House of England" is more likely to take effect than tho Australian Labour plan of semidetached States governed by Presidents selected by the workers themselves.

. The reply made by the Minister of Justice to Mr. Cooney's "challenge" in connection with the Elsie Walker case does not. appear to us to clarify the situation. So far as the suggestion of a charge of blackmail is concerned, it is'hardly necessary for Mr. Wilford to assure the general public that there is at present no ground for legal proceedings. But it seems to us - unfortunate that the Minister should reiterate his reference to a definite sum as having been discussed at the meeting between Mrs. Thomason and Mrs. Bayly. Mr. Wilford seefais to have no doubt that this sum was mentioned, but there is nothing in his statement to establish the circumstanccs surrounding the alleged proposal. Further, the Minister has completely ignored ihe ,most serious feature of Mr. Cooney's indictment—the alleged substitution of words in a certain letter. This charge is either true or not, and Mr. Wilford, speaking for the Department of Justice, can hardly afford to evade it. The whole position bears out completely the protests that we have already made against these "extra-judicial" proceedings. Charges of such a serious nature should not be made—more especially under shelter of privilege—against men and women who have no opportunity of defending themselves effectively or cross-examining witnesses and analysing the evidence submitted by their accusers. The case for a further searching judicial inquiry seems to us to have been materially strengthened by Mr. Wilford's indiscretions.