The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST IS, 1911. A SORRY REPORT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1209, 18 August 1911, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST IS, 1911. A SORRY REPORT.

The report of the Chief Justice on the Administration of the Cook Islands presented to Parliament yesterday is a most extraordinary production to emanate from anyone professing to have even an elementary conception of impartiality and justice. t It was inevitable in the circumstances under which the investigation by Sir Robert Stout was carried out that he could only hear one side of the story, for the residents at the Islands who laid the charges against the Administration refused to tender their evidence in support unless the inquiry was a public one, with the witnesses examined on oath. But we did not expect that in'presenting his conclusions on the secret investigations which he so unwisely undertook on behalf of the Government, the Chief Justice would abandon his judicial function and appear in the role of counsel for .the defence. Yet, no one. reading tho report carefully, can comc to any other view than that the Chief Justice has laid himself out to_ present as good a case as possible in reply to the charges made, and that in doing so he has strained even the partisan evidence placed before him in an endeavour to place the complainants at a disadvantage. An example of this is disclosed early in the report. He there says: "A perusal of the letters' [of tho complainants] will show that one of the main reasons given for desiring a public inquiry was that they had been attacked, and that they should have an opportuntiy of exculpating themselves. This teems In mc to imply that there arc many of the white settlers in llarolontja who do not hold their opinions.'' This statement is plainly designed to convey an impression damaging to the complainants. The Chief Justice, because Drs. Dawson and llosking and Mr. Reynolds asked for a public inquiry Jjo that the counter-charge made against them by the Resident Commissioner might be publicly replied to,, wishes the public to believe that many of the white settlers in Rarotonga do not hold the opinions expressed by those gentlemen. Is it conceivable that any impartial Judge accustomed to weigh evidence would draw such an inference on such absurd grounds, and place it on public record to tho prejudice of tho parties to one side of a case ? Would he not, on the contrary, infer that the parties who desired an open inquiry with the witnesses' on oath were confident of their positionthat their attitude, in fact, was in their favour, and deserving of commendation, instead of a covert and petty attempt to discredit them ? Then let us take an example of the extraordinary method pursued by the Chief Justice in presenting tho facts. One of the most serious of the charges made by Dr. Dawson was in connection with hospital management. Our readers will probably recall that we published in full in April last the correspondence which passed between Dr. Dawson and the Resident Commissioner respecting a request for the admission of certain urgent surgical cases to the hospital. Sin Robert Stout in his report deals with this matter. He quotes in full the correspondence from January 31 up to February 8. Then when it becomes really unpleasant for the Resident Commissioner—when it shows conclusively the blundering that has taken placc—the quotation of the letters in full ceases. The Chief Justice suddenly discovers it is only necessary to mention the fact that further correspondence took place. This suppression of publication of a portion of the correspondence is in itself quite enough to raise very serious doubts as to the impartiality of the report, but tho position is aggravated by a serious distortion of one of the suppressed lii order that there shall be no misunderstanding or doubt on the point it is desirable to reproduce in full this portion of Sir Robert Stout's report. He says:

No reply was made to this [tho Jiosident Commissioner's letter of February 81 until February 27, when Dr. Dawson wroto again. Dr. Story wrote on tho 28th—next day. No reply seems to havo been sent to Dr. Dawson, and on March 11 lie again wrote to tile Resident Commissioner, and the Kesident Commissioner replied on the lltli, stating that he had handed the correspondence to Dr. Chesson on his arrival, and that was why be had not communicated with Dr. Dawson. Wo would ask our readers to note tho portion of the extract given above printed in heavy typo. Tlw Chief Justicc deliberately states that the '.Resident Commissioner in his letter of March 14 wrote to Dit. Dawson, stating that lie (the Resident Commissioner) "had handed I he correspondence to Dr. Vhcutm on Jiin arrival" and added "that was win/ he had not communicated with Dr. Drncson." Those statements arc deliberately made by the Chief Justice in his written report—they are part of the ease which lie. makes out, as the result of his secret- investigations, -to the prejudice of the unfortunate men who are not here to reply,, and who were refused a proper opportunity of defending themselves. Tho statements arc part of the ease that the Chief Justicc puts forward

in defence of the Administration of tho Cook Islands. And they arc untrue. The letter of March H, of which we hold a certified copy, did not contain the statement that the correspondence had been handed to I)n. C'uesson on his arrival, nor did it contain the further statement that that was tho reason why the Itesidont- Commissioner had not communicated with l)ii. Dawson. Dr. Chesrox for some time prior to and at the time tho letter was written was absent in New Zealand. He had not returned to the Cook Islands, and so could not have been handed the correspondence "011 arrival"; and we. believe 110 has not to this day returned to the Islands.

The examples we have given of the inaccuracy and bias disclosed in the Chief Justice's report arc too serious to be lightly pissed ovci'. It is quite time that the situation was squarely faced. The Chief Justice, unfortunately for the prestige and standing of the Supreme Court Bench, does not appear to possess the faculty so essential to the proper administration of justicc of completely suppressing his personal idiosyncrasies when acting in his judicial capacity. It may be the unconscious intrusion of the habits of a lifetime of party politics and special pleading at the Bar that causes him at times to act in the manner calculated to shake that high confidence which the people of New Zealand have been so proud to extend to their Supremo Court Bench. His lapses into inacettracics may be due to his great industry forcing him to work at a higher rate of speed than is compatible with sound results. But whatever the reason, it is a serious menace to the confidence reposed in our law courts and opposed to public policy that there should be any possible ground for suspicion that the seeker after justice should have anything to consider save the merits of his cause. It is quite time that Parliament took this matter up, and the report of tho Chief Justice on the Cook Islands Administration affords an opportunity. Wc have merely mentioned one or two examples of tho worthlessness of the report. There arc many more, but for the moment thosc_ wc have given arc sufficient to convince the.public that it is urgently necessary that an end shall be put to such proceedings. The Chief Justice should never have undertaken this secret investigation on behalf of the Government on the conditions laid down. Having undertaken it, 110 has dragged the dignity of the Supreme Court Bcnch still lower by the presentation of a report which would do credit to a party politician.