THE WARDHISLOP CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 914, 6 September 1889, Page 28

THE WARDHISLOP CASE.

(From the N.Z. Times; September 6.)

The Special Committee apappointed by the Legislative Council to investigate the

Ward - Hislop correspondence has pronounced oracularly against Mr Hislop, and he has in consequence tendered to the Premier his resignation of the portfolio he held. The Councils decision, was not much in volume, but what there was of it was to the point,, and the Colonial Secretary met it in a straightforward, manly way by resigning his Ministerial position, and so has put himself right with Parliament. Such a step taken by a Minister of the Crown is of too momentous a character to be disposed of out of hand, and we were, therefore, not surprised to hear that the Premier had not decided, up to the last thing last night, as to the course lie would pursue. For ourselves, we hope the resignation will be accepted, and that Mr Hislop will then go a step further and resign his seat in Parliament and appeal to his constituents to set him right with the country. Of the result of that appeal we entertain no apprehension whatever. Mr Hislop would be returned to a stronger position than he ever occupied before. We take it that the main obiect of Parliament in entering upon this Ward-Ohristie and Ward-Hislop business was to protect the Judicial Bench from undue Ministerial interference. All the correspondence relating to it has been published, and also the evidence taken by the Special Com mittee of the Upper House. We see nothing in the correspondence and nothing in the evidence to incriminate the Minister beyond mere indiscretion. The indiscretion he admitted himself when the subject .was before the Lower House, and we think his frank confession might have been accepted and an acquittance in full extended to him. But tortuous are the ways of party politics. The indiscretion was quickly converted into a weapon of offence against the Government, and pushed to the extremity of Parliamentary censure. As to the value of the inquiry held as a means of arriving at a sound and just conclusion, the protest of Mr Hislop is the best criterion. He was debarred from testing the validity of the judgments and adducing precedents justifiying the Executive in taking action. There were three parties involved in the inquiry the Judge, Mr Christie, and the Government. The Judge and liis witnesses had been heard, but .Mr Christie had not, and the Minister impugned held only been allowed to leply to statements made by others. Hence he urged that the inquiry was not exhaustive,'and with that we are one with him, It has been only a half and half affair at the best, and such as it is it would have redounded more to the dignity of Parliament if it had never been held. The idea of the Minister being influenced by sordid personal considerations may be scouted at once as untenable. He was actuated by the best intentions, and this is precisely the view of the case taken by leading Australian papers. .The Melbourne Argus put the matter in a nutshell when it said lt Whether the New Zealand Government is right or not in its method of rebuke, it was certainly right in principle.” And with this opinion we cordially agree.