MR. HASELDEN, S.M.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 857, 1 July 1910, Page 2

MR. HASELDEN, S.M.

AND THE "RAILWAY REVIEW." Tho "Railway Review" just issued comments pointedly on the criticism of Mr. \V. I{. Haselden, S.M., on an article which appeared in the "Review" in connection with the hearing of a railway employees'. appeal boforo the North Island Appeal Board. The latest article says: —"in spite of Mr. Ilasekkiii's objections, we make bold to describe it as an uninipassioned view of and fair comment upon ail incident in regard to which comment was necessary. Evidently our criticism cut deeply, for we are glad to say that the appellant who last appeared before Mr. Raseklen was not diseoncertcd, nor his advocato embarrassed, by the magistrate's comment. Ho was not advised at an early s.tage to 'take his gruel,' nor was he told, before the caso had been opened, that he had got off lightly. During tho courso of a heated tirade, Mr. Haselden suggested that our article was based on falsehood and ignorance. Wo arc not going to be provoked into a controversy on tdiese lines, for we feel that our columns must be conducted with sometiling approaching judicial dignity, but as our critic, from his hi-gli place, has referred us to Supreme Court procedure in justification of his attitude, we must, as a duty to the railwayman of New Zea-, land, point out the absurdity of drawing a.ny such parallel. What would the public thiimk of a judge who, at the opening of a manslaughter trial, looked through the brief feir tho prosecution, ami then, eyeing the man in the dock, told h,im lie was very lucky not, to be faced with a murder charge, because they usually hanged people for such offences? SVe must again repeat that tho departmental file is an 'ex parte' document, that the appellant is not aware of all it contains, and that unless ho is supplied with a copy of all t.lis information thus supplied to the chairman of the board, thc-re is no justification for using it as the basis of comment at the expense of the appellant."