A DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT.

Northern Advocate, 6 September 1913, Page 4

A DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT.

Some weeks ago the propriety of a certain appointment by .the Government to the Westport Harbour Board was challenged by a member of the House of Representatives (Mr Atmore) on the ground that the individual in question was not a fit and proper person to be singled out for nomination to a public body. The suggestion appeared to be made that the unsavoury record of his nominee was known to the Minister for Marine, and after a period of heated controversy the appointment was referred to a committee of the House, charged with the duty of investigating the matter and reporting thereon. The committee duly held its inquiry —a rather expensive one, apparent-1

ly—and its report was presented on Wednesday to the House. As was generally expected, this had been drafted solely with a view to partisan considerations—that is to say, the Government members of the committee voted for findings calculated to make it as easy as possible for the Minister and the Oppositionists voted against them. The report was therefore a majority one of C to 4. On the whole it probably approximates to justice more closely than did the findings of the Minister's opponents, for whatever may be said about the appointment, no evidence has been forthcoming to even give colour to the charge that Mr Fisher "knew" Mr Simpson when he appointed him as one of the Government's nominees to the Board. The report very properly white-washes the Minister so far as this charge is concerned —and that is about all. There still remains the unpleasant fact that he, by making an appointment for which no possible defence can De advanced, except ignorance, has shown by this that the system under which these appointments are made is radically defective. What has occurred may hsppen again unless a very different method is followed than to make appointment at haphazard. In this case the record of the appointee is thus reported upon by the Police Department:—"At the Westport Court April 24th, 1907, selling liquor on Sunday, convicted and fined £3, costs £10 16s. May 7th, 1908 — Permitting a raffle on licensed premises, convicted and fined 10s, costs £11 19s. At Karamea—January 20th, 1910—Permitting drunkenness, convicted and fined £2, costs £ 1 10s; obscene language, convicted and fined £3, costs £1 Is; assault, convicted and fined £2, costs £ 1 10s; obscene language, convicted and fined 10s, costs 9s; permitting drunkenness, convicted and fined £ 5 costs 75." That a very grave mistake was made is hardly open to question, and it will have been observed that some of the Minister's friends have unwisely attempted to justify the selection on the ground that Mr Simpson having been punished for his offendings should not now r be "hounded down." This is obviously absurd, and we are inclined to think that it w r ould have been very much better that if instead of indulging in a bitter personal wrangle, the Minister had frankly admitted to unwittingly making a mistake. No sane citizen can suppose that Mr Fisher knew what he was doing in this business, but everyone would like to feel that nothing of the kind will happen

again