Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1926. BAUME ENQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 November 1926, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1926. BAUME ENQUIRY

The report of Mr., Riddell S.M., appointed as Commissioner, to enquire into the allegations of Mr. Howard Elliott, regarding the treatment of Baume in Wellington gaol, exonerated the prison officials. Seeing that Mr. Elliott refused to take any part in the proceedings, no other result was likely, as no evidence was offered against the officers. That was no” fault of tliri Commissioner, nor of the Prisons Department, and the finding of the Commissioner was the only possible verdict under the circumstances? Sb far as he could, Mr. Riddell' investigated the particular charges, of preferential . treatment tp Baume,-and found that none of tlj|. ordinary regulations had been in-’ fringed. The’ general public was

not so concerned Over any treatment given to Baume soon after his sentence, as over the fact of his very early release. The remission of practically all his sentence, despite the Judge’s strong comments, has not yet been satisfactorily explained, and that has really nothing to do with Mr. Elliott’s allegations. It would have been better had a Commissioner been selected against whom Mr. Elliott could raise no objection, although there is no reason Io believe that such “outsider” from the Justice Department, could have been any more impartial than Mr. Riddell. As it was, this particular enquiry was not so thorough as it might have been had Mr. ElFiott taken an active part in the proceedings, but no harm to public welfare is apparent. It is not the first occasion on which Mr. Elliott has failed in “producing the goods,and he canpot complain if the authorities and the public decline to take him so seriously in future. The Labour Party, in soleinii conclave 'assembled, had something to say on the Baume business as well as on the matter of sentence remission generally. It gravely announced that “the Labour Party will unhesitatingly condemn any individual or body of individuals who administer the law according to society status or financial considerations, but at the same time assures the Government that they will support every step that is taken that will give individuals who have transgressed the laws, the right to rehabilitate themselves and once more become responsible members of society.” The Labour Party has no monopoly of that commonsense attitude, and there was no real need to “assure the Government.” It also asked the Government to make public certain information about persons detained under the Prevention of Crimes Act, but it is unlikely to have furnished all the details sought. Suspects detained under this Act are not of the type over whom the public will have any anxiety, however their talent for mischief may be appreciated by industrial trouble-seekers. Nor is there any immediate necessity for the Labour Party to predict that “the judicial system will become a byword and reproach.” True, there have been of late some strange inconsistencies in the allocation of penalty for persons convicted of similar crimes, and none can pretend that the Probation system is not adequately utilised. However, Judges and Magistrates must be left to decide these issues, and if make errors, it is better for these to be on the side of leniency than severity. What is really the whole cause -of controversy is the frequent difference between the punishment awarded by the Judge who presides at the trial, and the actual penalty in*, dieted on the offender. Remission seems to have been overdone, and the Baume case will have served a usefid purpose, if greater sense of proportion is maintained in future. ' ,