INVESTIGATING LOSS OF SHIPS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 112, 5 February 1941, Page 10

INVESTIGATING LOSS OF SHIPS

Commission Of Inquiry Opens Sittings In Wellington PROCEEDINGS TO BE IN CAMERA The Commission of Inquiry which is to investigate the alleged leakage of information about shipping movements held its first sitting in Wellington yesterday. When the commission assembled the circumstances that gave rise to its appointment were outlined by the SolicitorGeneral, Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C., who also drew attention to the regulations empowering the commission to decide whether all or pan of the inquiry should be held in camera. The suggestion that part of the inquiry should be in public so that the men who went to the sea, the Government and its officers could be protected against unfounded statements was made by the national president of the Seamen’s Union, Mr. F. P. Walsh. Aftci Mr. Cornish and Mr. Walsh had spoken, members of the commission retired to consider the questions they had raised, and on resuming later the chairman. Mr. Justice Callan, announced that the commission had decided to hold the whole of the inquiry in camera.

Associated with bis honour as members of the commission are Mr. T. F. Anderson, secretary of the Seamen’s Union, Auckland; Captain F. A Macindoe, secretary of the Merchant Service Guild of New Zealand. Wellington; Mr. Perry, M.L.C., Wellington; Captain E. Rotherham, R.N., who recently arrived in New Zealand to take over command of H.M.S. Philomel. The commission is being asked to inquire into and report on the following matters: (a) The circumstances surrounding the loss of the steamship Holmwood, the motor-vessel Rangitane, the motor-vessel Vinni, and the steamship Komata; (b) the question whether there have been any leakages either directly or indirectly from New Zealand of information relating to the movement of ships, and, if so, the facts relating to such leakages. After the members of the commission had taken their seats, the powers of the commission and the nature of the inquiry it is to conduct w’ere outlined by Mr. Cornish. He also quoted from the regulations relating to the granting of an indemnity to witnesses for evidence they may give before the commission, aud to the power to hold the inquiry or part of it in camera, in the public interest. Loss of Four Ships. The facts that gave rise to the commission were well known, said Mr. Cornish. The Ilolmwood was lost ou November 25, the Rangitane two days later, aud the Vinni and Komata at the beginning of December off Nauru Island. He was not the representative of any party, but was present to assist tlie committee and to marshal the evidence. The Government would place before the commission all information in its possession that appeared to be relevant and helpful. Departments concerned with directing the movements of ships and with preventing information getting to the enemy would place all the evidence they had at the disposal of the commission, and also explain what precautions they adopted. No doubt the commission itself would make suggestions as to witnesses who might be called. There might possibly be other persons outside the Government who could be helpful, and members of the public were invited to come forward and help if they were able to give evidence likely to be of value to the commission. “No col mission Ims been set up with a more important task,” said Mr. Cornish. “I know of no similar commission having been set up in any other part of the British Commonwealth during the present war. Maybe the finding of this commission will be of benefit not only to this country but to the English-speaking world, for on the safety of our shipping the welfare aud future of our British Commonwealth depends.” Statements by Survivors. Mr. Cornish said it was intended to place statements of survivors of the ships concerned before the commission. Il was thought that Captain Upton, of the Rangitane, might still be in Australia. The Navy was endeavouring to get into touch with him, and if he were in Australia, though that was not certain, it was hoped that it would be possible to get Captain Upton over to New Zealand to give evidence. Captain Miller, of the Holmwood, would give evidence, and though Captain Fish, of the Komata, was in hospital in Napier no doubt it would be possible to get his evidence somehow. There had been references to a “high judicial officer” from whom startling revelations were promised. This person was a judge in Tonga, and though he and his wife were given the opportunity of making a statement in New Zealand, that which he did make would give very little assistance and fell far short of what was promised. It should be stated, however, that this “high judicial officer” disclaimed much that had been attributed tp him. His Honour: Where are these people? Mr. Cornish; They went away in the clipper. His Honour: They are no longer in New Zealand. Mr. Cornish: No.

There would be some evidence, said Mr. Cornish, as to what the personnel on the raider ships had said. The question would arise as to what value should be attached to this evidence. Maybe the statements said tp have been made by raider personnel would be regarded as suspect, for it was an old trick in warfare to try to mystify your enemy. Nazi Technique. It was well known that it was part of the Nazi technique to endeavour to encourage distrust for an opposing country's leaders. It may well lie that the raider captain had some such objective in view when he made the statements attributed to him. Possibly an element of boasting ami vainglory entered into the motives for the statements. Despite the fact that such evidence might lie regarded as suspect, the Government was not disposed complacently to disregard it. The matter was too serious and required most searching examination. The Government invited the commission to consider al! the protective measures taken concerning the movement of shipping. Mr. Cornish said the question of taking evidence in camera was not entirely easy. It was a judicial custom to fake evidence in the courts openly and in hearing of all. and the presumption was in favour of proceedings being held in that way. However, in the present case the proceedings were of a very special character and the public safety was involved. Some matters that would come before the commission could be taken in open court, but they were blended with others. It was not easy to draw the line of demarcation between what was prudent and what was not. It might very well be that the commission might feel it was better to err on the side of caution and take all matters in camera. If the commission should decide to adopt that course he cotdd not see how the public interest would bo prejudiced; in fact, it might very well be advanced, for, knowing that everything was in camera,

witnesses might be encouraged to come forward who would not otherwise do so. . . ‘T believe I his is the most 'important question that has oyer come before a Hoval Commission in this country, said Mr. Cornish. “It concerns nothing less than the lives of our men going overseas, and ships and cargo on which our war effort depends.” Attitude of Union. Leave to make a submission was granted Mr. Walsh. He said the question of an inquiry into the loss of ships was regarded as a serious matter by his organization. There had been a lot of loose statements published in the Press reflecting on the Government of this country. Evidence would no doubt show that these statements were unsupported, but, in fairness to the men who went to sea and to the Government, portions of the inquiry should be held in open court. If that were not done the public would think there was something to hide. The Press had given publicity to loose and foolish statements by more or less irresponsible people. He suggested that part of the inquiry should be open so that the men who went to the sea, the Government and its officers should be protected against unfounded statements. Mr. Walsh also asked that his organization be permitted to be represented at tlie inquiry so that the interests of the men he represented could be watched. His Honour: You wish to attend as counsel, cross-examine witnesses and call evidence. Mr. Walsh: Yes. Statement by Cliairman. Members of the commission then retired to consider the points raised by Mr. Cornish and by Mr. Walsh. When they returned about a quarter of an hour later his Honour said they had earefuUv considered these questions. The regulations empowered the commission to hold the whole or any part of the inquiry in camera if it considered that necessary in the interests of the public safety, the d.efence of New Zealand, the efficient prosecution of the war or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. That was a very grave power entrusted to the commission. The fact that the commission had that power imposed on it the very serious duty of considering which way it was to be exercised. The commission was well aware of the perfectly legitimate public interest in the topics it was to inquire into because they so intimately effected the public. Statements had found their way into the Press that naturally excited great public interest, and the public was entitled to feel that the matter had been taken seriously. That was one side of the question. On the other side there w*as the fact that from the nature of the topics to be inquired into portion of the inquiry would have to be in camera. Great mischief would be done by the publication abroad of matters that must be kept private because of the possibility of their being made available to the enemy. The Public Interest. The next question arose as to whether it was possible to have an inquiry sometimes in public and sometimes in camera. That in fact was the real question. The commission had come to the decision that in due regard to the public interest the whole thing must be in camera. There might lie occasions when it would appear to the commission that a statement could be taken publicly without risk to the public interest. Something might then go wrong when a witness was before the commission and a sudden development take place, with the result that wrong might be done before it could be recalled. Grave mischief might be stumbled on if the commission sat in camera only part of the time. His Honour said he was not able to afford Mr. Walsh the whole of the opportunity he sought. The commission would be glad to hear from him as a witness. Mr. Walsh wished to make representations relevant to the inquiry, and though it was difficult to conceive of any section being more interested than the seamen, other classes of the community might seek to do the same if it were done in his case. If people interested in that way were allowed to be represented the duration of the inquiry would be extended to such an extent as to destroy its utility. All the commission could <1 < was to hear Mr. Walsh and other persons similarly situat, as witnesses, but it would be prepared also to hear their representations. The commission then continued its proceedings in camera.