The Press Thursday, December 1, 1921. Another Liberal Mare's Nest.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17317, 1 December 1921, Page 6

The Press Thursday, December 1, 1921. Another Liberal Mare's Nest.

| > Early in October Mr Masters, M.P., '''•■. a member of the, Liberal Party, caused Ji a stir" by rising in Parliament to moke .'uome serious allegations against the ,1' honesty of the Board of Trade, the Go- . and certain companies engaged in the manufacture of cement. < Yesterday the House received Mr Jus- ',' tice Sim's report, which was an extra- < ordinarily complete refutation of the i. allegations of this too eager politician. -. 'Mr Masters brought his charges, he averredt solely in the interests of the publio, but the discussions in the House t made it pretty dear that the idea was ; to make some political capital, if possible, for the Liberal Party, for the .'case was conducted, so far as the House ■■ „ was oonoerned, mainly by Messrs Wil- ~ ford and Atmore. Mr Masters used exceedingly severe language in his original, reference to the matter. The < Government, the Board of Trade, and the cement companies were concerned , in an arrangement that was "criminal" and "immoral." "Scandalous commer--1 - .cial immorality" was one of the phrases with which Mr Masters decorated his indictment of the Government. By the sheer violence of his imputa- . tions Mr Masters obtained considerable publicity for his remarks, and some of the liberal newspapers were unwise enough to back him up, \hoping that 1 this time they were, in the phrase of their greatest man, the member*for ✓ Christohurch East, at last "backing a " winner." The allegations, rather, we suspect, to the alarm -of Mr Masters "„ and his friends in the flcuse, were referred to Mr Justice Sun, who took a great deal of evidence, and allowed Mr Rasters every opportunity to prove his ' charges, which amounted to this: that ; - the Board of Trade 'assisted the, cement l ooiPDanieß "to fleece the publio" in" the

matter of prices, in defiance of its duty, I and neglected to take action in tespect j of a trading agreement between thecompanies. Mr Justice Sim's decision is that the Board of Trade not only did not assist or permit the cement companies to fleece the public, but on the contrary benefited the public at the ' expense of the companies; that the companies did not obtain unreasonably j high prices from the public, and could | not have succeeded in an attempt to] do so; and that the agreement between the companies was not illegal or an unreasonable restraint of trade, and had not operated against the public interest.

When this report was presented to the House Mr Wilford missed a signal opportunity of showing that he can accept defeat with a good grace. He could not challenge Judge Sim's findings, and in his chagrin he mad e a lame attempt to suggest that the charges investigated by the Judge were not the charges n-tually made. He also asked the House to accept, as the opinion of "an '•' old member of the legal profession," by which he meant the opinion of one who knew, his opinion that in making no order for costs against Mr Masters the Judge really was on Mr Masters's side. This suggestion seems to us to be particularly regrettable coming from a politician who is also a member of the Bar, and we cannot doubt that on reflection Mr Wilford will regret it. Mr Masters, in his turn, attempted to cover his confusion by reviewing the case and maintaining his opinion against that of the Judge, from whom he appealed, he said, to the higher court of public opinion. We have little doubt as to the verdict which will be given by public opinion as between Judge Sim on the one hand and on the other hand, a disgruntled party politician. It may be assumed that Mr Masters and Mr Wilford will hesitate before they embark upon any further attempt to level charges of malfeasance against the Government, but we may in £h e meantime express our regret that in the last stages of its existence the Liberal Party should have so completely lost its common-sense and its sense of propriety as to level exceedingly grave and baseless charges against the honesty of Ministers and officials and, when these charges have been referred, at their request, to a Judge of the Supreme Court, to insult the Judge by questioning his finding, /