JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 137, 7 December 1926, Page 5

JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE

RELEASE OF PRISONERS

LABOUR PABTY'S REPLY TO

CEITICISM,

Mr. W. Nash, secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party, writes as follows:— The Labour Party is concerned about the system, of administering justice in the Dominion, but it is just as much concerned not to enter into a hue and cry for the purpose of destroying the opportunity of recovering self-respect which ia made available to those who have slipped off the tr.ack. It therefore, took the road of charity and commonsense by waiting till the cries died down, and then urging that every possible i avenue that might lead to injustice'or preferential should be examined.

.. It cannot be said, however, that the attitude of the "Evening Post" in connection with the ''Baume'' case has been distinguished by either commonsense or charity.

Entering the campaign on 9th October by agreeing with, the Attorney-General, the'"Post" saicl:—"The advertisement of a man's discharge from prison would certainly not improve his chance of making the new start which it is the object of the system to provide, and the need of secrecy is therefore in general imperative." This agreement is qualified in a later- paragraph which says that: "Secrecy has in this case ceased to be either possible or desirable." Since that date the "Post" has blown hot and cold according to the volume of the cry of the hounds. There is, as you say, a time for speech and a time for silence, but surely the time for speech is not when the pack is in full cry. It> may be that those who released the captive did so too soon. It may be even that a distracted parent has also forgotten that there is a time for speech and a time for silence, but sufely you should not blame the Labour Party for not howling with the pack.

"The objective of the party was clear and open. 'The only possible affect of joining the hue and cry was to harass the released prisoner to no public advantage. The question as to who opened the door, how they opened it, "and why they did so could not be solved'whilst the clamour lasted. The principles to guard are that the best possible opportunity shall be given to the prisoner to recover himself, and that the hinges of the door shall not be well oiled for any particular class or section of the community.

What, however, is the attitude of the "Post"? After saying that secrecy should be observed to give the prisoner a chance to make good, they go on to say but not in this ease. You reprove the public for lack of knowledge and charity, and .then ruthlessly, even cruelly, attack the relatives of the prisoner for lack of judgment, stupidity, and talkativeness in their time of distress, mortification, and anxiety. Your view of justice is that it must be seemly. "Justice must so be administered as not only to be but to seem justice." And this thing that looks like justice is "to pass for it. If the friends of the prisoner take any steps for his release,.you advocate the old law that "The sins' oft the. father and the mother shall be visited on the children." Surely this is out of place in an article which talks of charity and justice. You exonerate the Prisons Board by saying that "We are perfectly satisfied that , there has not been a vestige either of class or personal favouritism in the matter, and that the principles applied in this case have been previously applied on general grounds to others." But if you were satisfied so early, why continue to hunt with the pack? Your mind is, however, revealed in that after exonerating the Prisons Board from class bias you immediately show that the "Post" is not free from the sin it expressly condemns. "A professional man (says the "Post") suffers more than a labourer from a conviction, and an educated man is doubtless less susceptible to reformative treatment than, an uneducated man." Why does a professional man suffer more? Why is a labourer more susceptible to reformative treatment? Why do you put the manual worker \m contradistinction to the professional class"? Why do you infer that a manual worker is uneducated? The problem is profoundly difficult, and the difficulty has been aggravated more by the noise of the hounds advertised,by the "Post" than by "the silence imposed on the authority which knows most about it." Individuals craving notoriety, and for mean ends have endeavoured under the cloak of an attack on the Government to besmirch the character of public officials whose position limits their possibility of defence, and they have been assisted by "The Post" to this end. On 9th October you were satisfied "perfectly satisfied" that no preferential treatment has been given, but six weeks later you ask "Is it a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor," or "of one law for the educated and another for the uneducated"? "Have Baume's social position and his intellectual distinction which the Judge properly regarded as agravagting his offence been treated by the Prisons Board as mitigating it?" The position is that "The Post" from the opening of the campaign to the end has vacillated with the cry of the hounds. The effect of all its arguments on principles has, been, to attack persons, and strangely enough your issue of 30th November, contained two articles "A Belated Statement" and "Principles or Persons." Was the attack on the Labour Party a screen to cover "The Post's" inconsistency? If the desire is to enunciate principles, as against attacking persons, "The Post" will support the Labour Party's request to the Government to make public the following information: — (I) How many persons have been ordered to be detained under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1924?

(2) The length of the periods for which detention was ordered?

(3) How many persons have been re leased?

(4) The original period of detention ordered for those already released?

(5) The period for which they were actually detained?

(6) What reasons were given to the Minister by those who recommended the release?

(7) Were any conditions imposed hefore release was granted?

(8) What conditions were imposed, if any?

With this information available a reasonable judgment can be formed as to whether the board is in accord with "The Post" when it suggests that uneducated labourers are more susceptible to reformative treatment than educated professional men, or that "an educated mat. suffers more than a labourer from a conviction." If the Prisons' Board has adopted the standard of class '•snobbery and prejudice calmly enunciated by ''The Post" then it is X indeed a menace, and the sooner it is called to account the better.