“GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.”

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16359, 1 October 1913, Page 8

“GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.”

We need not assume that tho charges of “graft and corruption” which tho member for Waitemata mado against the Liberal Government at tho “Reform rally” in Palmerston North and which ho repeated after Sir Joseph Ward’s indignant protest in tho House of Representatives yesterday afternoon had tho endorsement or even tho approval of Mr Massey and his colleagues; but it is a pity tho Prime Minister did not moro completely dissociate himself from statements which cast a gross and unwarrantable reflection upon his political opponents. Judging from an interjection lie made while tho leader of tho Opposition was speaking tho Royd Garlick incident was still rankling in his mind, and perhaps at tho moment ho was more anxious to “ get even ” with his critics than ho was to do them simple justice. Of course Mr Harris’s implication was that while a member of tho Liberal Government Sir John Findlay had. drawn large sums of money from the Treasury for law costs in connection with the administration of the Land for Settlements Act. Out of an expenditure of £11,319 by tho Lands Department in this respect, lie said, Sir John and his brother had received £0959. As a matter of fact Sir John did not receive a single shilling for law costs while he occupied a seat in tho Cabinet. Ho had occasion to show during the last general election indeed that ho sacrificed rather more than £15,000 for tho privilege of serving his country as a Minister of the Crown, It is quite true the firm with which ho is connected, received some £6OOO for law costs in a period of fourteen or fifteen years, but during tho six years ho was a Minister not a penny of this amount went into his own pocket. That his firm was engaged by the Government to represent the Crown in several large land acquisition cases was due to its standing in tho legal profession and to the recognised ability of Sir John himself, not to the party leanings of any of its members. Tho whole of its bills, as Sir Joseph Ward explained yesterday, were rendered in detail and every item was taxed by the registrar of the Supreme Court. It would bo as reasonable to suppose that tho Crown Prosecutor in Christchurch is being bribed by fees as it is to suggest that Sir John was rewarded for political services. Wo may be sure that if there had been the slightest ground for a charge of “ graft and corruption ” on this score the charge would not have boen reserved till now when it might have been used much moro effectively a couple of years ago or at any time sinoe Sir John first entered publio life. In any case tho Ward Government, which Mr Harris’s suggestion was intended to injure, would have to bo held free from blame, since none of the payments to which the member for Waitemata pretended to take exception was made under that Administration.