The Dominion FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1910. PARTY V. NATIONAL INTERESTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 977, 18 November 1910, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1910. PARTY V. NATIONAL INTERESTS.

The Select Committee appointed by the Legislative Council to investigate the allegations made by Mr. ■ Hinb concerning the receipt of com- . missioxis_ by the Hon. T. K. Macdonaxd in connection with the sale of properties to the Government, presented its report to the Council ■yesterday afternoon. It ,was the class of report which might have been expected from a Committee composed entirely of the nominees of the Government. In the face of the evidence it could not do other- ■ wiso than admit that Mr. Hine , had proved his charges, but it held also that the evidence did not disclose any violation of tho law or any ireach of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council. It ignored altogether the real issue submitted to _ it; that is as to tho political propriety or otherwise of such transactions as formed the basis of the charges. It shirked its obvious duty to Parliament and to tho country by neglecting to_ take the opportunity thrust upon it to rcmovo once and for all time any possibility of doubt as to the obligations imposed on members of the Legislature to abstain from any transaction with tho Government involving personal profit which might be open even to tho suspicion of the use of political influence.' T'ho facts of the case, remarkable as. they no doubt i have appeared to most people, can hardly be said to, have icon disputed. The charges made by Mn.HiNE were as follow: , "That Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, in ,- or about tho year .1901 and subsequent years, while a member of the Legisln;ivo Council, either alono or in conjunction with his then partner (a land agent), conducted the sale to the Government of tho property r of one. John Motley Leigh, .it Nai Nai, and the properties of two other persons, and received from the said John Motley Leigh and the vendors of such . other • properties, commission, 1 . or other' sums of money, or alternatively the said T. K. Macdonald and his -, said partner received the said commis- . sion or • other slims, and divided tho same." ' ' , The evidence called in the case of the Nai-Nai purchase went to show { that Me. Leigh bought the property of 143 acres, in 1903, for £10,003, or f £70 per acre. In April, 1904, after ho had spent a small sum on it, he ■offered it to the Land Purchase Board for cutting up into workers'. !. homes at £200 .per . acre. An experienced Government valuer ~ was,, sent out to value it' \ t and he reported that the land was quite unsuited for workers' homes (giving his reasons for this opinion); and'ho estimated its value at -. £80 an acre—no less .than £120 an ~ acre below the value placed on it by the owner, Mr. Leigh. Nothing camo of Mr. Leigh's offer to sell.at I. £200 per acre, and he tried to sell - the land privately. Later ' in tho ■• year, however, he- again offered tho land : t6 the Land Purchase Board, '■ this time at £150 per acre. This was in June, and the Board, having " its valuation of £80 an acre, de- * clined to buy. '* In' April, 1905,' the matter was revived from a new quarter: Messrs. ■Macdonald, Wilson' and, Co. com- " municated with the Prime Minister; - Mr. Seddon, offering the land on behalf of Me. Leigh, and Mr. Seddon instructed the Board to inspect and report, stating that , the Government desired to purchaso land in the. locality for workers' homes. On April 17 Messes. Barron, Marchant, and Kensington, of the Land Purchase Board, accompanied by. the Minister for Lands (Hon. T. Duncan) and Mr. T. K. Macdonald, visited the property and next day the Board agreed to recommend that £120 per acre should be offered for the land. This was £40 per acre above the valuation of the official valuer. Mr. J. D. Ritchie, the present chief of the Land Purchase Board', admitted under examination , that it was not usual-for the Board to purchase merely on their own in-. " spection.' Tho offer of £120 was declined ' by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. as insufficient.- It may be mentioned that. Mr. Macdonald had met Mr. Payerhill, tho Department's valuer in tho street, and in the course of an' argument . with him said that his (Caverhill's) valuation of £80 per aero was too L " low, and to use tho witness Caverhill's words, Mr. Macdonald "wanted him to put on _ a higher value." It was. on April 26 that Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. refused the offer of £120 an acre for the land; and on April 28 tho Land. Purchase BoarJ met and agreed to irccommend. that £150 . per acre should be paid, a covering memo, stating that this change was mado N. in' view of tlio probability of tho _ estate being taken into the Compensation Court. How the estate could be taken before the Compensation 'S. Court, except at the option of the Board itself, was not explained. In any case, the outcome of tho whole matter was that this estate which the Government valuer valued at £80 per acre and which he stated m waa g,uite unsuitable for workere'

homes, was purchased through I v Messiis. ' Macdonald, Wilson, and c Co. at £150 per acre; and to again v use the words of the valuer is now t a white elephant on the hands of the 1 Government. Messrs. Macdonald, I Wilson and Co. received commission l from Mr. Leigh at the rate of 21 t per cent on the purchase moneyj t £21,472 10s., the commission thus t amounting to £536. In evidence Mr. i Leigh stated that when he went to i pay Mk. Macdonald, that gentleman i asked him to make out two cheques t a'i he did not want all the money ( to go into one account.- Two ( cheques were made out accordingly, f ono for £100, the other for £436, c These cheques did not go through '. any account at all, it being shown, i when they were produced before the 1 Committee, that they had been made ( out to "bearer" and cashed' over J the bank counter. Me. Leigh ad- i mitted that it was not customary ; for him to make out largo cheques i in this way—he usually made them > out to order and crossed them as ! well. Ho could not say why he had I departed from his custom on the oc- i casion under review, The Commit- i tee was left without further en- ( lightenment as to this portion of the i transaction, Mb. Macdonald, who received the cheques: from Mr. i Leigh, not being called to give evi- 1 dencc. The evidence in the second charge, I that connected with tho Love Es- 1 state, of 54 acres, at tho Waiwetu, ' showed that on October 10, 1905, the ; Government agreed to purchase, through Macdonald, Wilson, and ! Co., as agents for the Loves, 23 . acres 22 perches, at £250 per acre, '. or £6075 in all. This transaction i eventually was carried through in < September, and Macdonald, Wilson, ; and Co. received £303 in commission. Prior to that, however (on October 23) an agreement was drawn up by which the Loves i agreed to sell the whole 54 acres to Mr. Wilson (of Macdonald, Wilson and Co.)' for £6500. . Mr. Wilson, however, declined to he a" party to this transaction—tho agreement apparently was drawn up by someone without his. knowledge—which would have" meant that after, the sale of the 23 acres to the Government for £6075 Mr. Wilson would have been in possession of the remaining 29 acres at a cost of less than £500. His gain, of course, would havo been the Loves' loss. The Loves, it may be s,tated, are Natives. We, have given a summary of the evidence in. support of the 'charges so that the public may be able to recall tho details which may have become blurred by tho lapso of time between the closing of the hearing and tho presentation of the Committeo's report. So much for the facts. Mn. Hine, it will be generally conceded, we think, _ has proved-his charges up to the hilt so far as the facts are concerned. _ Having dono this! it is for Parliament and tho country to say whether on those facts it is a desirable thing that such conditions should be permitted to continue. The Legislative Council Committee has found that Mr. Macdonald neither broke the law nor. the Standing Orders of the Council, and we are not prepared to dispute'their finding in this respect. But that does not touch on the real issue underlying this matter. Mr. Hine's contention throughout has been that our politics should be kept clear, not only of corruption, but of any suspicion of corruption. In his charges against Mr. Macdonald ho made no, charge of corruption against anyone—his contention was that a member of the Legislature naturally would carry considerable weight with tho Government and with Government Departments in any recommendation or application that ho might make. That in these circumstances a member, whether _ a land agent or not, when ho submits a, proporty. to tho Government or to a Government Department on behalf of anyone who is paying him for his services, is liablo to exercise an influence inimical to the interests of the country. That the door thus becomes opened to the possibilities of corruption on a substantial It is not necessary to prove corruption in order to show the danger of possible corruption, and- Mr. Hine and his . counsel, • Mr. Myers, have throughout tho inquiry into the charges before the Legislative Council Committee, contented .themselves with proving the facts, leaving it to ■the country to say whether or not thoso facts disclose the possibility of an evil creeping into our public life, which it should be the duty of every honest citizen to resist to the uttermost of his power. That the Legislative Council Committee,has failed to rise to a great .occasion—that it has neglected its opportunity to place on record some expression of chc high obligations attached to the Legislature that could,be taken as a guide by members; ;, that it has shirked a chance of setting a standard oi political morality that must have influenced and elevated our whole public life is greatly to be deplored. It was content to bring in a bald finding exonerating its fellow member of any breach of the law_ or the Standing Orders; and ignoring entirely the great question of prin-' ciple involved. In the circumstances it is pleasing to recall the attitude adopted by Parliament in 1886, when the House of Representatives laid down a guiding principle which wc think would find universal acceptance with the general public to-day. ■ The House then unanimously resolved : "That with reference to the report o£ the 'District Railways Committee, while it appears there were no corrupt motives ... this House desires to. express its opinion that members of tho Legislature should not act as agents in negotiations or auy transactions in which tho Government is directly or indirectly a party either as a buyer or a seller." To-day,. however, national _ issues are of less concern to our politicians than party interests. ■ The effect on tho party, not tho effect _ on the nation, is the consideration that counts.