The Press. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1899. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10384, 29 June 1899, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1899. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

. debate on the amendment to. the Ad-dtesa-irt-Repiy moved by the Hon. Captain Russell, so far as it has gone, shows to rf> mark&a! degree the weakness of the Government in debating'power as compared with the Opposition. The Hon. Mh' Carroll, who is always a pleasing and tsot unite-, quenfclyan effective speaker, seems, to have been labouring trader some disadvantage yesterday; and foiled to grapple with any : of the points at' issue in a way likely to convince either the House or the country. Mr. Geo. Hutchison* in a speech which was all the more telling because it was free from exaggeration and temperately expressed, marshalled in a succinct and con- ' vincing.fqrm the facts which point most strongly to the need of an enquiry into the connection of Ministers wifcb-the marine > scandal. There could-be no better evidence of the poverty of resources on the Ministerial side'than the fact that the Government had to fall back on Mr. Morrison as their champion, not only to repel the onslaught of the Patea gladiator, but also to lay down the law as to the constitutional aspect of W case. Mr.- Jas. Allen, the member for Bruce, who followed on Ike Opposition side, delivered an able and forcible attack on the Ministerial position, and •Mγ. Gflfedder's reply only served to ' chow more strikingly than before the disparity between the forces on each side. Later in the evening, it was evident that in Mr. Rawlins, the newly-elected member for Tuapeka, the Opposition has gained a debater of considerable vigour. Ib is unfortunate, no doubt, in some ■respects that such an important question, from a constitutional point of view, should bo treated as a party question. The malaitenancs of the rights of Parliament, particularly as against ifehe representatives of the Crown, ought to be equally the concern of both sides in the House. Unfortunately this is not so in the New Zealand- Parliament. On more than one occasion the present Government has attempted to curtail the privileges of Parliament, or the rights of the people, and when protest has been, raised, Mr. Seddon baa brought bis party under the whip. He 'has thus placed -them in the dilemma of having either to throw over the ties of , party or sacrifice the privileges of Parliament. That the contention of the Opposition as to a Parliamentary Committee being tho proper tribunal to enquire into the marine scandal is constitutionally sound, tliero cannot be the slightest question. "Wherever party Government has been established," says Todd, "the determination of all political and party questions and the adjudication upon complaints against the existing administration sihould be reserved I for the consideration of the. Legislature in Parliament assembled." In another pface the same authority says—"Complaints against Ministers of the Crown on matters affecting the performance of their public duty should be formulated in conformity with the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure, and submitted to the considera- ■ tion of the local Parliament on the first available opportunity, when they can be regularly investigated and decided upon in " accordance witih the usages of the cpnetitu- ' tion," and as a precedent to show what 1 ought,to be cites,,a, case, which i occurred in our own .Parliament' in 1883. Mr. Dargaville, member for Auckland, " brought down certain chafes against the I , then Colonial . Treasurer and AttorneyGeneral. The Colonial' Treasurer (Major Atkinson) himself moved that a Select Committee bo set up to enqxiire into.the allegations. This was done, and the Committee found that even in the modified form in whicii they were submitted by Mr. Dargaville at the actual investigation, the charges were without foundation. We know it is said that a Parliamentary Committee, as ordinarily constituted, is a party body, and its decisions are likely to be tinged by party bias. This is true, but what the public looks to is not the decision ' of the Committee, bufc the evidence which 1 is elicited; and a Parliamentary Committee is a first-rate body for getting out the facts lin a case like this; We know that there j would be et least thre3 or four members of i it, probably more, keen to .get right to the : I bottom of the affair, and the chances are that they would* succeed. An acquittal by such a body carries far more weight with it than would an acquittal, by a Royil Commission, nominated by Ministers themselves, and possibly subjected to all the influences of terrorism, which the present Government have brought to beacr upon grand juries, ; upon Magistrates, and even upon tho. Supreme Court. will remember how, last year? certain charges were brought agaiast" Mr. Seddon. Those charges were, referred to a Select Committee, , who exonerated Mr. Seddon. The public . know that upon that Committee were some - of Mr. Seddcn's strongest opponents, who spared no effort to probe into tie facts of , the case, and when the Committee acquitted him, it made Mr. Seddon'a exoneration absolutely complete. Both the Premier and Mr. Hall-Jones sihould have agreed to set up a committee in this case. '-For taeir own sakes it would have been the best course to follow, and we should have been spared the painful spectacle of seeing the Government, by means of the party whip, trying to coerce the House into doing an unconstitutional act, and sacrificing the liberties of the people.