Evening Post TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1926. A BELATED STATEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 131, 30 November 1926, Page 8

Evening Post TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1926. A BELATED STATEMENT

The inquiry conducted by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., into the treatment of Sydney Erne Baume at the Terrace Prison has resulted in the only possible way. The charges which the Rev. Howard Elliott had made against the prison officials, but did not support by evidence or argument at the inquiry, were conclusively disposed of. The basis 'of the whole structure was a confusion between the Prison Regulations and the Borstal Regulations, and as soon as that was pointed out charges which should never have been made ought to have been promptly and unreservedly withdrawn. But the formal inquiry has had the advantage of letting the daylight into one phase of a case which has been the subject of all sorts of rumours and suspicions. Baume was lost to public view between his sentence of three years' detention in February and his release in October, and in the absence of official explanation conjecture has been busy with the causes of his unexpected reappearance. In such an atmosphere the idea that he had been pampered from the outset found ready credence. The fact is now clearly established that, though he received better treatment in the Terrace Prison than the ordinary prisoners, his treatment was exactly that prescribed by the Borstal Regulations, and shared by other detainees. The Magistrate does not conceal his contempt for the credulity and the carelessness which went to the making of the allegations, and it is highly satisfactory that charges which, as he says, "reflected upon the honesty and integrity of the prison officials," should have been completely shattered. Along with Mr. Riddell's report we were able to publish yesterday another judicial pronouncement on the same case which must have been read with equal interest. The silence of the Labour Party regarding a case about which everybody has been thinking, and everybody else has been talking, is surely ono of the most remarkable displays of discretion of which it has ever been guilty. And now, when after all these months of waiting the impati-: ent curiosity of the public is partially relieved—we cannot say satislied—it must surely be admitted that the speech of the Labour Party is for once just as discreet as its silence. "There is," says the wise man, "a lime to keep silence, and a time to speak," but who can say that speech is ever out of season when it is as grave, as edifying, as balanced, and as pointless as that in which the Labour Party announces its indecision on this remarkable case? Some of the impeccable but irrelevant sentiments expressed would be welcome in any copybook; for instance — Provided that competent, wise, and just persons act as advisors to the Minister, their advice should bo accepted at once. Paradoxical as this doctrine may at first sight appear, the more you look into it thp more far-reaching and irresistible will its message appear. Solomon in all his wisdom must take second place, for when he said, "He that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise," he left us in the dark as to the nature of the counsel. But when the Labour Party tells us that he that hearkeneth unto "competent, wise, and just" counsel is wise, no excuse is left for misunderstanding or denial. The proposition would, however, have carried even greater weight if, in a manner which Solomon himself did not disdain, it had j been reinforced by its converse: If, on the other hand, incompetent, unwise, and unjust persons act as advisers to the Minister, their advice should only be accepted with extreme caution. Even a capitalist statesman might be glad to transfer such an illuminating brace of aphorisms to his com-monplace-book. Here is another, almost equally "pregnant with celestial fire": "Whilst stressing the restoration essentials, it is necessary to say that it is equally important for the sound organisation of the social life of any community, that those in charge of the Judiciary shall be above reproach. "Stressing the restoration essentials" is good, and so is what follows, but we are not quite sure that it was necessary to say it, or that we quite understand what it means. Who are "those in charge of the Judiciary"? As they are distinguished from the Judiciary itself, they are apparently the Government and the Legislature. That they should be "above reproach" is indeed a noble ideal, but its relevance to the matter in hand we are unable to see. The fact is that, after maintaining a stubborn and surprising silence for months, the Labour Party now propounds a series of balanced platitudes which is almost equally effective in concealing its meaning. There was really no need for the party to assure us that it "does not in any way associate itself with the hue and cry which has been manufactured during the Jast few

months." The Labour Parly took Ino hand either in the "manufacture" of this hue and cry, or in resisting it, j nor did it contribute in any way to the guidance of public opinion on an issue of supreme importance. Strong pressure was needed to get from the Government the promise to enlighten a perplexed and indignant public as to the facts and the principles on which the Prisons Board proceeded on this case, hut in the "manufacture" of this pressure the Labour Party took no hand. After the Government has promised the desired information, the party solemnly and graciously declares that in view of the prevalent feeling that there is a possibility of preferential treatment having been accorded to certain individuals, ifc is of opinion that the Government should make public certain information. This belated and mealy-mouthed avowal merely serves to emphasise the long silence when articulate speech might have been of some use. It is too late for these blind watchmen and dumb dogs to pose now as the saviours of the State.