MR. CORRIGAN AGAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19142, 7 October 1925, Page 10

MR. CORRIGAN AGAIN.

Unpleasant as it was before, the political episode known as the "Corrigan incident" is not made any more palatable by the latest outburst from the central figure in it, Mr. W. J. Corrigan, member for Patea. About the middle of July Mr. Corrigan, speaking in Parliament, alleged that a member of the Cabinet had been guilty of certain practices, involving land speculation, which, if substantiated, would certainly have necessitated his retirement, from the Ministry and probably from public life. Sir James Parr, obviously the Minister implied, gave the allegations a flat denial and invited Mr. Corrigan either to withdraw them or repeat them in circumstances such that Parliamentary privilege did not protect him. About three weeks later, as the Prime Minister was setting up a committee of investigation, Mr. Corrigan unreservedly withdrew the charges. A little later Sir James Parr complained that copies of Mr. Corrigarx's speech containing the allegations, without the subsequent withdrawal, had been distributed broadcast to the electors of Patea. Mr. Corrigan thereupon expressed regret and said that from every platEorm in his electorate he would explain the position. He would "do his best as a man to clear the matter up." His effort "as a man ' to do this has apparently begun, according to a Wanganui telegram. He is aggravating his offence by j insinuating that it is merely a case of his opponents making much of the

circumstances for political purposes. He describes it as "a part of the political game." If to resent a charge of corruption reflecting on a Minister's reputation, personal as well as political, is only part of the political game as played by Mr. Corrigan, it is fortunate everybody does not play it by the same rules. The reckless irresponsibility Mr. Corrigan has shown throughout the affair is repeated by the manner in which he now shifts his ground. He says the real charge against Sir James Parr is of showing political bias in the appointment of justices of the peace. If that was the real charge, why did he not make it at first, instead of casting reflections on the Minister's honour in a manner he would not have dared to do outside the shelter of his Parliamentary immunity from legal proceedings? If Mr. Corrigan can do no better than this in explaining away an incident which is obnoxious to the ordinary canons of clean political fighting he would be well advised to say no more about it, leaving his constituents to judge of the facts so far as they have gone. It seems the only way to avoid further "Corrigan incidents."