The Press. TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1899. IS PARLIAMENT TO BE GAGGED?

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10882, 27 June 1899, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1899. IS PARLIAMENT TO BE GAGGED?

Mr. Scobie Mackenzie, we think, lias pot the position accurately in regard to the appointment of what is known as the Marine Scandal Commission. The fact that the Government has chosen to set up such a Commission does not in the slightest; degree prevent Parliament, if it chooses, from discussing the question in ail its bearings. If it were a tribunal constituted by order of Parliament itself;—if it were a Parliamentary Committee, for example—then an ordinary sense of propriety, as well as constitutional usage, would require that there should be no discussion tending to ; prejudice in any way the decision of the body to whom the matter .had {been referred. " .It'would nevee do, now*, ever, to sanction the .doctrine that Parliament is to be debarred from discussing any subject simply because the Government has decided to appoint a Royal Commission to enquire into it. Ink would be placing in. the hands of the Ministry of the day a gag with which they could dose the mouth of Parliament at any time, upon any subject

I which, it might be awkward for, them to have ventilated in public Parliament is still , the<>higheste Goort in the country, unless it choices to surrender Its privileges in this respect at the-bidding of Mr. Seddon. and ' this we hope it will not consent to do.. . - Into the merits of the Jones certificate , case, it is nofc necessary, ntgr to enter. , -The records of our Lot Courts show that & gross scandal was perpetrated' iba" that instance by the fraudulent issue of a captain's certificate to a man who was not entitled by law even to.sit for the examination, and who would have been, quite incapable of passing it on his own merits.- There is naturally a feeling of uneasiness in the public mind which will sot be allayed until it is known whether there have been any other cases of the kind, and, if so, how many men there are at the present time baring command of steamers in New Zealand waters with, valuable human lives committed to their care on the strength of certificates which they have obtained by illegal means, and which, therefore, afford no guarantee whatever of their competence. This is one question which Parliament should insist on seeing probed to the bottom. Another point, hardly less important, to be cleared up is as to how far Ministers are responsible for what took place in the Jones case. We refuse for one moment to believe that any Minister could be knowingly party to the holding of the fraudulent examination; yet Ministers might be morally responsible for what actually took place. We have evidence that what in connection with the Transvaal crisis is called "gentle and! con- I tinuous pressure" was brought to bear by the Premier and Mr. Hall-Jones upon officers of the Department in the direction of "something beijig done" for Captain Jones, of the Duco. That pressure was applied even after the officers had reported that nothing could be done for Captain Jones while still keeping within the requirements of the law. Ifc is quite conceivable in such circumstances that a weak-kneed official, trembling for his billet, might, without any guilty-knowledge on the part of Ministers, be led into an illegal actin order to "do something for Captain oones." and so get the troublesome business out of the way. Possibly he might have persuaded himself that he would never be found out, and that, even if he were, he might not be any worse off in the end tlian if he set ' himself firmly in opposition to the gentle and continuous pressure, which when it comes from such influential quarters must become very wearing in* time even- to the strangest-willed and most well-meaning of officials. Does Jihis system of gentle and continuous pressure exist to any extent tliroughout the Civil Service, andj if so, does it operate in a way that is prejudicial to the public interest? That is- an important point for Parliament to clear up, and one which it is impossible for any Royal Commission to settle. If Ministers are to be impeached, Parliament is the only Court before which they can properly be .tried. It is manifestly absurd, as well as improper, for 'his Excellency the Governor, on the advice of Ministers who have to dear themselves bafore the country, to set up a tribunal before which those self-same Ministers are to ba tried. This point was urged with much effect by Ministers themselves when the Police Commission was set up and they were asked to give evidence before it, so that the public might see how far political influence was allowed to interfere with the efficiency of the Force. It ia not unlikely that they might again sot up the plea of privilege before the Marine Scandal Commission if this same point were again gone into. Yet this ia one of the main questions on which the public desire to be satisfied, and, so far as we can see, ParEament alone can deal wifch it satisfactorily. It should also go caratully into the records to see how previous certificates have been granted. If it is found that other cases of fraud have occurred, and that in those cases there was no evidence of Ministerial pressure or interference; then it will be pretty strong evidence that the Department itself >is rotten,. and Ministers will be so far absolved. Wo hope that a searching investigation into all the circumstances will yet be made. The first thing, however, is for Parliament to assert its own privileges, and protect the rights of the people by , a clear intimation that it will not allow itself to be gagged at the will of any Ministry of the day.