The Dominion. SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1910. "GROSS IMPROPRIETY."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 869, 16 July 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1910. "GROSS IMPROPRIETY."

• That the public will be shocked at the disclosures made this morning by the publication of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into certain transactions' connected with the Income Tax and Valuation Department goes without saying. That they will be satisfied to leave things as they are it is impossible to believe. The Prime Minister laid before members the report of the Commission oh two only of the charges made and steadfastly refused to make known anything further. Members and the public are to be kept in complete ignorance of whether the two eas.es in question are the most or the least serious of the number inquired into; the secret of the wrong done the community, whatever it may be, is to be hidden away in the recesses of the Departmental records to suit the. views of Sir Joseph Ward. Eeforc touching on the very grave nature of tho disclosures so far published, it may prove of value in estimating -the weight to be attached to tho statements now made, and opinions now expressed by tho Prime Minister, to_ recall what took place when the subject of the Land and Income Tax and Valuation Department irregularities were under discussion last session. On December 2, Mr. Wright, 'the member for Wellington South, referred to the unpleasant rumours which were abroad to the effect that loans had been granted to certain officers of the Advances to ' Settlers Department almost up to tho value at which the property was purchased. This is what Sib Joseph Wabd stated in

reply " {Hansard, Vol! 148, Page 500): ... I may say that the rumour also reached my ears, and I. took the trouble to as tar ua possible inquiro into tho matter. I find from tho information furnished to mo that instead of the -full amount referred to as having been loaned by the Department, the amount was . not within A'-100 of what -had been paid, for tho property, so that the rumour, as is , often the ease, appears to have been wrong. Following up the subject Mu. Weight then became more definite. He said the Prime Minister would not give the House any information on the point of whether Mk. Heyes was personally charged-"with, anything that was wrong, but he (Mu. Wright) had some information which he proposed to place on record. It was as follow (Hansard, Vol. Mb, Pages 631 and 632.) Mr. Heyes,' head of the Land and . Income Tax Department,- had bought a property in Wellington for 41500. This .was the Government valuation. He wanted a loan on it from the Department. In the ordinary' course he would have been' entitled to borrow .£925 on the property. Apparently ho was not satisfied with but wanted .£1250. How.did ho obtain it? Ho invited llr. Dugdale, the inspecting valuer, - to value tie property, which he. did, assessing it at .£2200. The Department then advanced ,£1240 on it. Was that true or not? ! This remarkable statement was made on Decomber 3 last. How near to the truth it was can be judged froui the report. of the Commission: now published. But what did Sir Joseph Ward say in' reply to the member for Wellington South at the time (Hansard, Vol. 148, Page 632): ■ ... No charge of tho nature mentioned had been made against Mr. •He-yes, and no investigation had been made by the judges into any such suggestion. The proper course for the hon'. gentleman [Mr. Wright] was to have mude sure of his facts, before he brought the matter up in Committee! The valuation made by Mr. Dugdale of the property in question was not 42200; and, as a matter of fact, the certificate of tho valuation of that property was signed by. the former Valuer-General. Ho. did not know ■ sufficient of the other items of the lion, gentleman's statement to deal - with them at that st-ugei but if he was to judge the whole by that which he had information about, 'he must say there was a 'great deal in the' hon. gentleman's statement, which was contrary to fact. Yet the report of the Commission shows that the property was purchased for £1560; that it was valued by Mr. Dugdale at £2040 in order that Mr. Heyes should get an advance of £I2UO upon it. Who then was nearer the truth—Mr. Wright, an outsider, or Sir Joseph Ward, who had the right to go to the Department and obtain ..the fullest information?. Must it not strike the public as a curious thing that the head of the Government, after inquiring into tho matter (see his statement as reported in Hansard), should know so little about what the Commission has formed this "gross impropriety"? Wo directed attention only a day or two ago, in discussing the E. A.: Smith case, to the astonishing ignorance of Sir Joseph Ward regarding important happenings in. the High Commissioner's office and to tbc v remarkable disappearance of certain letters 'in connection therewith. In connection with that matter the public was. misled on certain points owing to this carelessness and to the Prdib Minister's'lapse of memory. On the.present occasion the public Will be equally puzzled to know how the' Government could bo so easily blinded as to what was going on when: definite information, such as that put forward by the member for Wellington South, was available to an outsider. • . Turning to the actual-findings of the' Commission of Inquiry on the two charges which the Prime .Minister has deigned, to make known, no one can accuse the Government of treating with harshness, the two officers whoso services have been dispensed with. That high public officials, holding positions of trust in* one of the most important financial Departments of the ■ State, should have been found guilty of the "gross impropriety" alleged, must prove a painful shock to everyone. But what is still more disquieting—we might say alarming—is the fact that members of Parliament should form so low an estimate of the obligations of their office and of the standard of honour and honesty desirable in the public service of the country as to express such .views as fell last night from Messes. Hall, Ross, and LAtrrenson. We cannot recall any more amazing ethical pronouncement—any more disturbing political utterance by a responsible member of Parliathe House was treated to last night from Mr. Laurenson. Even" members on his. own side felt called' on to rise in protest. We shall have something more to say later on the Commission's report and the attitude of • Sir Joseph Ward. Wo cannot close this article, however, without some mention of the officers of tho Department who have borne the brunt of the unpleasant duty of exposing the improprieties which have been going on in the Department. How much the country owes to these officers is, we venture to think, not yet clearly understood. If the full report of the Commission of Inquiry and tho report of the Judges were made known the public would probably have a better idea of the obligations they rest under to the officers in question.