A CRITIC CRITICISED.

Evening Star, Issue 14575, 25 May 1911, Page 2

A CRITIC CRITICISED.

MR ALLEN AND THE COURTS. [Special to the Szab-J AUCKLAND,' May 24. The Auckland 'Star' hotly attacks the member for Bruce in the course of a long leading article in to-night'e issue. "We are not surprised to find that tho remarks made by Mr James Allen at Hamilton last week, alleging the. corruption of our courts by Government, have caused a painful sensation throughout the Dominion. What has shocked tho general public ie tho nature of the accusation, the manner in which it was insinuated, and the means that Mr Allen subsequently took to support it. When Mr Allen first stated his con- [ viction tlia't the Government • had not I acted cleanly in respect to those adminis- ■ toring the law,' he was at once appealed to | by the ' New Zealand Times,' the ' LyttolI ton Times,' and other Liberal journals to ; tell the country clearly what ho meant, and to produce evidence in proof of his charges. Mr Allen was evidently discomposed at these importunities, and ho so far lost his presence of mind as to endeavor to .throw upon his critics the responsibility of draggiag under public notico a matter which, he asserted to thorn, ho ' had no deeire to bring into the full light of day.' This is thoroughly characteristic of the tactic? sedulously practised by the loaders of the Opposition, and our readers should be able by this time to estimate them at their true value. However, when Mr James Allen had been at last induced to explain what he meant, his remarks came to this: that tho Chief Justice of the Dominion, having received remuneration for his services from the Government outside hie statutory salary, had beer., perhaps unconsciously, influenced in favor of Liberalism, and that ho had given proof of bias in his comments on the Hino charges, i We have already commented upon the grcss unfairness and unreasonableness oi this particular accusation, and tho execrable ta6te that Mr Allen displayed in making it, but we must admit with regret that we have long since given up expecting plain dealing from tho Opposition. Wo can sympathise in a sense with the hopelessness of their position, and we can understand that the impossibility of making out a decent case against the Government has ccmpoUed them to have recourse to highly dubious expedients in the vain attempt to undermine tho influence and authority of Liberalism herein; but we can j see no sort of moral excuse for these inces- \ sant allegations of dishonesty and corruption against tho Government when tho men who bring the charges know that they have no 6hred or vestige of substantial evidence to support them. Tho Hinc case is a splendid illustration of tho absolute baselessness of these vaguo insinuations against the integrity of the Liboral Government. It is because these charges, so far as they wore directed against the Government, broke down so completely that Mr Allen and Mr Massey fell into a perfect fury. Does -Mr Allen expect us to believe that all our Judges are the facile tools of tho Government, and that their opinions can be bought by timely additions to their salaries? Perhaps it may be as well to quote for the benefit of our readers the caustic comment of the ' Lvttelton Times,' which, dealing with Mr Allen's attack on Sir Robert Stout, suggefiU* that as the Chief Justice, when he was a politician and a Minister, wa.s one of the most dangerous enemies that Conservatism in this country ever had to face, Mr Massey and Mr Allen have neither forgotten nor forgiven this. We commend to Mr Allen's consideration the good advice tendered him by the 'Lyttelton Times'' to make amends for his flagrant indiscretion by a very ample apology to the distinguished public servant he has so shamefully defamed."