A Royal Commission and its Sequel.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15017, 11 July 1914, Page 10

A Royal Commission and its Sequel.

There are one or two points of great p_blw interest in annexion with the i-ifcnl case. Fairbairn v. the "Otago

Daily Times," which was concluded yesterday, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for £8-50 damages. We do not think tho jury could havo dono otherwise than find a verdict against the newspaper, ivhich had in a leading article accused the Royal Commission on the Cost of Living, of which the plaintiff was a momber, of having "faked"' or suppressed ©vidence, and also pub-

lished a letter from a correspondent :n which Mr Fairbairn personally was infcrcntially accused of being on the Commission to "grind his own axe." These charges wero "justified" by the defendant company in tho pleadings, but Avorc not proved in evidence. In fact, they Avere distinctly disproved, and tho editor of iho journal, having heard tho evidence on tho other side, Avith * frankness which we think did him great credit, admitted in effect that they could not be sustained, and that thero was no chargo against tho honour or honesty of any oi tho Commissioners. "Lie law in such a caso is that whilo the utmost latitude is allowed to fair comment- on public men, and matters of public interest, yet tho statements of f?.ct on Avhich the comments are based must be accurately stated. Whilo Aye think, therefore, that tho jury were bonnd to find for tho plaintiff, it seems to us tliat thero Avero extenuating circumstances in tho case to which, judging from tho heavy damages awarded, the jury hardly allowed duo weight. In tho first place, with all due deferenco to tho learned judge who tried tho case, wo must respectfully but firmly dissent from tho view that it was right for th© plaintiff to. bo a member of this particular Commission. It was not like an ordinary Commission, to collect information and make recommendations on some abstract question such as licensing IaAV or marriage and divorce. Ono of tho questions submitted to the Commission was: "To what- e_+-en+. have mono-

" polios, combines, trusts and other as- " sociations of manufacturers or sellers "of the necessaries.'of life contributed "to the rise in prices?" Everybody knew from the discussions which had taken piace in Parliament aud elsewhere that certain firms and associax tions of persons -Aero to bo placed on

their trial, that an attempt Avould be made to obtain information as to their methods of doing business, and that an adverse report on those methods might do considerable harm to the commercial reputation of tho persons affected. Wo say, therefore, that in regard to such firms and associations as the Sugar Company and the Merchants' Associa-

tion, the Commission was sitting in a ' ' ' N . ■ quasi-judicial capacity. That being so, the utmost care should have been taken to preserve tho impartiality of the Commission. . Now Mr Fairbairn was not merely known as a person holding strong views about trusts and merchants' associations. He was engaged in a business which brought him into competition ivith some of the firms or associations to be enquired into by the Commission; he had had serious differences with them; he had actively endeavoured: to promote legislation.to make some of their methods illegal, and if not ■ at that time he afterwards became involA-cd in serious litigation with somo of the firms regarding Avhom as a Commissioner he AA-as, as we contend, to acquire in a judicial capacity. We said at the time, and we repeat it now, that in going on that Commission Mr Fair? bairn placed himself in a false position. He seems, indeed, to have.felt so himself, because when the appointment was offered to him ho sent a telegram in reply:—"Consider my evidence more '■important. Anxious to help the "Government in every possible way."* He intended that as a refusal, and we believe his first impulse was right; but the Mackenzie Government gazetted him, notwith-rtanding, and then, as ho stated, ho thought it would be cowardly to withdraw. Mr Fairbairn's presence on the Commission gave the merchants a very good reason to adduce why- they should not give evidence before it. Mr Fairbairn offeredto resign ill order that he might himself give evidence before the Commission,- but his colleagues, Ul-advisodly as Aye think, persuaded him not to do so, and evidence Avhich was virtually evidence-for the prosecution against tho merchants was supplied by an accountant in Mr Fairbairn's office. Let us, however, not be misunderstood. '-- Although Mr Fairbairn was placed, as wo think, in a thoroughly false position, we Believo that his attitude throughout the proceedings was as one of the witnesses, Dr. Hight, said, that of a. particularly" conscientious man. Our point is, however, that the presence on the Commission of a member known to bo personally interested in regard to one of the issues submitted, deprived the report of the Commission of some of its weight if it did not prevent it from getting evidence which it might otherwise -have obtained. It also involved the proceedings iv an atmosphere of suspicion, in which the rumours and inferences to which our Dunedin contemporary gave currency would naturally arise. It was in this atmosphere of suspicion that the too-hasty assumption that evidence had been suppressed very naturally arose. There was an undoubted discrepancy between tho evidence of Mr Jamieson, published in tho local newspapers, and that which appeared in tho report of tho Commission. The explanation is that Mr Jamieson supplied type-written copies, both to tho newspapers and to tho Commission. Ho read only part- of the document, but intended that tho wholo should be embodied in the proceedings, and assumed that this would bo done. The Commission and its officers wero quit© justified in holding that only that portion delivered orally should bo published, and the charge of suppression, therefore, falls completely to the ground. Of course, as wo.said before., tho newspaper should have taken moro pains to find out the actual facts, but it has been more than amply punished

for its indiscretion. Wo congratulate Mr Fairbairn on the complete vindication which he has received at tbe hands of the jury, but, in the public interest, wo hop© that his appointment to tho Royal Commission on the Cost of Living will not be regarded as a precedent to bo followed when appointments to any kindred body are to be made in future.,