Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 14524, 28 November 1910, Page 4

On Saturday, when dealing with tho report of the Special Mr Hine'S Charges. Committee on Mr Hine's allegations, we dwelt chiefly on tho signal failure to establish the wholesale charges of ''Tamrnanyism," especially in respect to tho administration of tho Seddon and Ward Governments. Hut we would not for a moment have it supposed that we are inclined to minimise tho gravity of the issues connected with tho Committee's censure of the conduct of- a past and a present member of the Legislature. Indeed, having regard to the evidence, we are not at all sure that the Committee—tho majority, that is to say—have not shown an unduo disposition (at least in Mr Kaihau's case) to ,: whitewash " transactions of a rather shady character. The presentation of a minority report is significant in this respect—though unfortunately the published details of the voting prove that party predilections exercised a paramount sway over minds from which all considerations except a sense of judicial responsibility should have been scrupulously, banished. Only too surely, we fear, will the sarno passionate motives ho iu operation during the debate on the report. The Opposition will probably contend that Mr Hine has been substantially, if not entirely, triumphant; and it will not be surprising if tho Ministerialist party are tempted to go to the other extreme and seek to minimise the gravity of the specific condemnations. A judicial debate, befitting the circumstances and the issues involved, is almost too much to hope fte.; but it seems to us that the country may fairly expect the majority of I the House of Representatives to refrain I from any attempt to avoid tho natural consequences of the adverse finding; in Mr Kaihau's case. Mr Kaihau is a member of the Legislature at the present time, and (while it is a relief to know that this solitai-y instance of impropriety represents the sum total of Mr Hi no's proof of his wild charges of wholesale contemporary "Tammanyism ") it would never do for the House to deal lightly or leniently with the offence that was established before the Committee. "Tho Committee arc of " opinion that the receipt by Mr Kai- " hau of the aforesaid payments in con- " ncction with his duties as a member "of Parliament was improper." It is an open secret that Mr Kaihau's evidence before the Committee was not giveu as candidly as could have heen desired, and tho Opposition minority hold that he should have been convicted in respect to the iirst charge as well as the second. Ho this as it may, thero is nothing equivocal in tho finding (just quoted) on the second ehargo, and prompt punitive action on tho part of the Government and tho House will be expected - to follow.