The Evening Star SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1910.

Evening Star, Issue 14523, 26 November 1910, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1910.

Tire equivocal character of the fame or

notoriety recently Mr Mine's Charges, achieved by Mr J. B. Hine, member for Stratford, will not be materially altered by the findings of the Special Committee of the House of Representatives. Seeing; that the ‘Dominion’ and other Opposition organs are affecting to hail Mr Hine as the triumphant champion of political purity, it will be pertinent to point out that ho has failed to substantiate the wholesale allegations of “ Tammanyism ” which he first submitted to the House in his speech during the Financial Debate and on subsequent occasions. He promised to “ electrify the House and the country,” and he was at pains to establish the yoint that the Goyornmcnt, as well as members of Parliament past and present, were implicated in his charges.

“ Xow I would like to make it clear “that there is an imputation lodged at “the door of the Government. . . . “The Government must therefore be “implicated. There is not a doubt “ about it.” What has been the result? So far from the country being “ electrified ” by proofs of corruption or other misconduct on the part of Ministers of the Crown, the reputation of the Sodden aud Ward Governments has emerged triumphant from a searching inquiry. Air Mine has had a great deal to say about the loftiness of his mo-. ti\cs. “1 feel I have a very high “ national duty to perform, and it was “ that feeling which caused me to speak “in the way I did the other day, . . “ In bringing these charges I am quite “ free from any personal feeling or pro-' “ iudicc of any kind, and 1 am not ‘ ! actuated by any personal or political “ambition.” Wo dare say that Mr iliiio has managed to persuade himself that his action has had no relation to partisanship; for self-deception is easy in such a matter; but it is impossible to read tho ‘ Hansard ’ report of his speech on the Budget without recognising the force of Sir Joseph Ward’s expression of belief that “tho honorable “member was carried away with an “ insatiate desire to blacken tho Ad- “ ministration when ho tried to connect “the Government with Tainmanyism.” Tammailyism, Tammanyism, Tammauyism, was the reiterated burden of the speech, with tho avowed object of discrediting Liberal policy and Liberal administration. “Now, Sir, wo have “heard a good deal about Tammanyism “ in this debate, and to my mind it can “be very well applied to the action of “ the Government, etc. . . . I also

“call it Tammanyism when tho Go- “ vernment, etc. . . . I call it Tam-

“ many ism when tho Government, etc, «. . . I also call it Tammanyism “ when, etc. . . . These are the items “ which 1 call Tammanyism, aud I say “that they are eatiig the very heart

“ ont of tho character of the country.” To-day the Seddon and Ward Administrations stand acquitted of Tammanyism, in respect to those charges which camo within tho purview of tho Special Committee (other charges having been conclusively refuted by tho Prime Minister in the course of debate). Tho specific allegation concerning the Flaxbourne transaction was distinctly disproved. Speaking generally in regard to tho acquisition of Flaxbournc and other estates, wo have no hesitation in saying that tho Government, considering all tho difficulties they had to face, wore eminently successful in acquiring tho properties at prices much below the demands of tho owners. In all cases of land acquisition Mr Seddon; in his day, generally look tho business into his own keeping, and it is incontestable that ho tjover neglected an opportunity of conserving the interests of tho State. Tho acquittal of tho Government in respect to charges of Tammanyism is,' then, tho most salient feature of the Special Committee’s report, because these charges had tho most vital and radical relation to the purity of national administration. Imputations on tho integrity of Ministers of tho Crown are more serious, from the public point of view, than similar reflections upon the conduct of individual members or oxmembers of tho Legislature. At the same time we have no wisli to minimise tho significance of those clauses in the report which express censure of the action of certain politicians. Hero, again, .some of tho charges are dismissed (including that particular allegation which Sir Robert Stout characterised as “ tho reproduction of tho babblement of an election contest”), but there are other findings which undoubtedly suggest the need for amendment, or, rather, extension, of tho Disqualification Act, by bringing within its scope cases whoro it has been clearly proved that members of tho Legislature have made use of their position to influence (with a view to personal gain) tho acquisition of private property by the State. Wo shall take occasion to revert to this and some other considerations arising from tho report.