MR. DAVY AND THE SUTTON CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 12, 14 July 1885, Page 2

MR. DAVY AND THE SUTTON CASE.

Mr. G. B. Davy, Registrar - General of Land and lite R.M. and District Judge, has addressed the following remarkable lotter to Mr. W. C. Buchanan, M.H.R. : — " Land Registry, Wellington, Bth July, 1885.— Sir — My attention has been directed to certain articles and correspondence which have appeared in the Wellington Evening Post relative to the Sutton Enquiry. I regret exceedingly that my report should have been made the basis of a personal attack upon you and Mr. Boetham. Had the paper in question published the report as a whole, instead of a few loose and unconnected extracts, it would have been seen that the sole result of the enquiry, so far as tho Wairarapa business was concerned, was to expose tho weak and inconsistent action of the Department whioh gave to Mr. Sutton (perhaps qnite needlessly) the appearance of an injured person, and to tho whole case the aspeot of a oase of oppression. I am, of course, precluded from going into publio correspondence on this matter, and am, thereforo, very much at the mercy of the newspapers. I trust, however, that you will acoept this disclaimer on my part of any intention to cast discredit upon your aotion.— l am, &c, G. B. Davt." Mr. Davy was entrusted with the task of making a judioial enquiry into the causes which had lev to the removal of Mr. Sutton from the ojice of Sheep Inspector. He held the eflbuiry, and his report and the ovidence taßjen have been laid before Parliament. Mr. Diyvy'a oonnootion with the matter properly ce»aed when he gent in his report. Evoryone ex/sept Mr. Buohanan and Mr. Beotbam, who were mixed up with the caße, assumed that the enquiry was properly held, and that tho report fairly and impi.rti*!ly represented the results elioited. Mi". 1 .Buchanan, indeed, contended that Mr. Davy had not properly conducted the inquiry, inasmuch as witnesses who should have been examined were not called; and, further, that in cortain rospeefcs tho report waß not justified by the evjdenoe ; but neither he nor Mr. Beetham attempted for a moment to say that the report did not fairly justify the comments we mode on the foots stated, or the inferences which we drew from the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, let Mr. Davy baß now the impertinence— no other word fitly desoribes his action— to write to Mr. Buohanan expressing regret that kis report " has been made the basis of a personal attack" on Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Beetham, uni disclaiming any intention to cast disoredft apon their aotion. What has Mr. Davy to do with the purpose to whioh his report as a publio document _ is put, or what has his intention to do with the matter P It was for him to fully ascertain and truthfully state the facts irrespective of porßons altogether. His intention should not have gone beyond this, and he should not have cared on whom ho threw oredit or discredit, so long as the evidence justified the conclusion. The evidence, so far as it goe3, justifies the report Bent in, and the report and evidonoe alike justify every word we have written on the subjeot, and what Mr. Davy is pleased, without the slightest justification, to term a "personal attack." Mr. Davy complains that we did not publish the whole of tho report, but only some "few loose and unconnected extracts." What we did publish was a oarefully-preparsd summary of ths entire report, and our comments were based on a very careful pernsal of the whole of the doouments laid before Parliament. As to Mr. Davy's interpretation of the meaning of his own report, he must either have forgotten what he wrote, or when writing he must have singularly failed to find words to express what he thought and intended. His present sneers at Mr. Sutton and most improper attempt to weaken that offioer's olaim for redress, founded upon the facts elioited at the enquiry, are in anch exceedingly bad tasto and so deoidedly improper that we are sure they will meet with general condemnation. As to Mr. Davy being at the meroy of the newspapers and precluded from publio correspondence, we may point out that not a word ' reflecting on him ever appeared in our columns, except in Mr. Buchanan's letters, and that the same rule whioh prohibits publio officials from writing to newspapers should a fortiori have prevented his writing such a lotter as the one given above to a member of Parliament intimately concerned in a case whioh Mr.' Davy has been required to enquire into as a judioial officer. The impropriety of such a communication must be apparent to everyone. That Mr. Davy should be so extremely anxious to exonerate himself from the subpiqion of having expressed an unfavourable opinion of the action of the members for Wairarapa, suggests the idea that he is really as afraid of tha political influence of those gentlemen and as anxious to propitiate their favour, as his own report and the ovidence taken in the case tend to show timt Mr. Dick and his late colleagues wero when they offered up Mr. Sutton as a sacrifice. We are very sorry indeed that an officer in Mr. Davy's position should have been so illadvised as to write such a letter as he has done. _____»__„___„