A DERELICTION OF DUTY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 695, 21 December 1909, Page 6

A DERELICTION OF DUTY.

The House of Representatives cannot; bo complimented upon its meek reception of the Prime Minister's refusal to give it any information concerning the trouble in the Land and Income Tax Department. Me. Mabsey- put the position very, well when We said that "the Prime .Minibteb had either said too much or too little," but he would have done: himself more credit if he had brought an equal clearV ness of vision to the amazing proposition that Parliament's authority in the matter is destroyed by the Government's decision to institute undescribed proceedings against an unnamed person on a charge which is not disclosed. A more ridiculous proposition than this was surely never put forward by a clover politician or accepted by; an Assembly with any pretensions to intelligence. Months ago' the country, 'by the- Government's own act, was niado aware that there had been something seriously wrong in a Department the administration of which, more than the administration of any other Department /with / the exception' of : the Department of Justice, should be absolutely abbvo. suspicion. Two judgeß of the, Supreme Court were silently and secretly invited into a private room—in itself, a quite iriiprbpor thing—there to carry out an inquiry into certain charges preferred against the : management of the Department. They, made their report, not 1 to (Parliament, , but, to the Executive,' and even the nature of that report or the nature' of the matters -investigated is withheld by tho Prime Minister on pretexts too flimsy to call for any moire destructive, criticism, than the mere statement of their import. The House and the' country are asked to believe that it. is im-' possible to make a general statementj consisting,of a few words, as to the nature of the /charges investigated .(by the people's judges sitting as a secret tribunal responsible to nobody) without revealing the details of many private persons' businesses! ' The report was described by. the Prime Minister 'in terms that, might lead the public to suspect that the judges-rer. commended the 'presentation 'Jpf gold medals to everyone concerned, But the I head of tho Department is. relieved from duty for three months, and some person or firm" outside the Department is to be prosecuted. How can the House contend for one moment that this impending prosecution, as, to even tho nature of which •it knows nothing, can relieve it of its duty-to the public?:' Alt that'the public knows is that, there is something seriously amiss in a Department of; the first importance. Yet the Government; is able to treat as if'it Were; an impertinent and irrelevant Society of irresponsible individuals; '■; We are disappointed, and the ■ public will be disappointed; at the" failure of the House to assert iteelf against as serious and /dangerous an insistence; on- fixecutivo:, predominance; over a complacent Parliament as the Government has ever, made; The public knows that there is nothing sub judice. Nothing has ever;. been: sub ju'dice in the .'whole affair; /tho'.two judges were mere private .investigators employed temporarily/ by the Executive But even '• if there; were some actual case arising but of the'trouble before the open Courts at. the present /. moment,' there would still , be no excuse for the Government's determination to hush up the af-fair,-even to; the extent of refusing 'to state the nature of the' case, and no' excusb for Parliament's; neglect to insist upon 'knowing the nature of tho disease in a great, public Department.; The public may be excused for wondering whether Parliament is the public's executive, or .whether it is;the servant;of tho v Minis : ters of/;the; day. : . ■~'•■■. ■'■'■'■•:' ■... V/; ./: