Manawatu Evening Standard. CIRCULATION 4000 DAILY. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1913. THE WESTPORT ENQUIRY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9589, 5 September 1913, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. CIRCULATION 4000 DAILY. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1913. THE WESTPORT ENQUIRY.

Thk West port enquiry lias ended, as possibly everyone expected, in the presentation of what is practically a minority report, which has a very nasty sting in it. True, the Minister for Marine is completely exonerated, and Mr Atraore's charges, so far as they affect Mr Fisher's honour and judgment, are shown to bo without foundation in fact. Roth the report presented by the Select Committee as a whole, and the minority report, which presumably reflects the opinions of the Opposition members on the Committee, are agreed on this point, the latter report expressing the opinion that "the Minister for Marine was not aware of the convictions recorded against Mr Simpson when he appointed him." This minority report, however, is obviously intended to be, not so much a "whitewashing report" for Mr Fisher, as a justification of Mr Atmore, the quondam "Independent" member for Nelson, who. like the member for Christchurch North, attests his "independence" by his consistent support of the Opposition, and by his scarcely veiled hostility to everything that emanates from the Government side of the House. The Committee, it must lw» remembered, was set up to consider the chargos made by Mr Atmore against Mr Fisher. It had nothing to do with Mr Atmore's reputation. Under cover of "privilege*' as a member of the House, Mr Atmore attacked Mr Simpson in such a way that he was unable to defend himself, or to plead the extenuating circumstances which were plainly apparent in connection with the convictions that had been recorded against him. The enquiry showed that, in spite of these convictions, Mr Simpson enjoys the confidence, esteem and good will of his follow citizens on the Coast, and that he has been elected to positions of honour since the convictions referred to. Mr Isitt'a "whitewashing" report alfiims that Mr Atmore was "justified in his statement that certain convictions were on record against Mr Simpson before his appointment." and that the member for Nelson was "warranted in assuming that the Minister had ascertained the personal character of the man he had appointed." Under ai] the circumstances that is a grossly impertinent and unjustifiable assumption, both on the part of the minority and of Mr Atmore, for it places on record their joint boliof that the Minister for Marine is so indifferent

to the niceties of public fading, mid to the responsibilities of the office he holds, that he would appoint any rnau with "a record" to a position of trust, simply to suit his own ends. That was practically the charge Mr Attnore levelled against Mr Fisher in the first instance in connection with Mr Simpson's appointment, and although it was shown to be wholly unfounded, and contrary to the Minister's expressed declaration upon the subject, the slur already cast upon him is repeated by the minority. The public probably has a clearer grip of the facts as the result of the enquiry, although Opposition journals persist in distorting the facts, but the party turn that has toon given to the business really destroys the value of the report of the Committee's decision as a whole. The division that took place on Mr G. \V. Russell's amendment to the report was conducted purely on party lines, the report being adopted by a minority of 14. The result is interesting, as giving a very fair indication of the strength of parties in the House. Allowing for Mr Speaker and for t!i«> one absent supporter of the Government, Mr K. Newman (the'member for Ran-i gitikei), the Government is able to, command the votes of 43 of the 80 members in the House. Excluding the live Labour members, the actual strength of the Liberal Party (assuming that the nine absent "Liberals" ail voted with the Opposition) is thus seen to be 32. Hut it is doubtful if all the absentees would have voted for Mr Russell's amendment, and that brings I us to a point that we urged editorially on August 20th last, that as practically all these charges are decided on party lines, the setting up of Select Committees to enquire into them really plays into the hands of the Opposition. The Government should therefore be very careful how they handle their power oi setting up these committees. A tremendous amount of time has l»een wasted on the Westport Harbour Hoard appointments, with but doubtful resuits, the benefits derived from the majority report being rendered largely nugatory by that of the minority.