THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1897. QUESTIONABLE TACTICS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 3263, 21 October 1897, Page 2

THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1897. QUESTIONABLE TACTICS.

With which are incorporated the Wellington Independent, established 1845, and the New Zealander,

An unworthy attempt is being, made to misrepresent, not only the Government, but Mr Commissioner Tu with regard to tha setting up of a E >yal Commission of enquiry into tha condition of the Police Force of the Colony. If it wore a matter which alone concerned Ministers we should have felt inclined to treat it with the same indifference as we have deemed it our duty to mete out to many other accusations made—it seems to ns—without reasonable proof. But in the present case the honour of a gentleman who has been but a few hours in the colony, and who is debarred from making any public defence of bis conduct, is very nearly concerned. It will, therefore, be well at this juncture if the facts are placed on record and the public is left to pronounce judgment. The conference between Commissioner Tunbridge and members of the Government took place on Monday night, and it was at that conference thatthenewly-arrived officer expressed the opinion that enquiry into the conduct of the force should take place. On Tuesday the Cabinet unanimously agreed that the wishes of the Commissioner should be complied with, and it was there and then decided that the only tribunal which oould be expected to possess the confidence of the people-of the colony would bo' ti Eoyal Commission. It was further decided that it should consist of Commissioner Tunbridge and a Stipendiary Magistrate. To have appointed any man who had either had to do with the Prohibition movement or who had been identified in any way with “ the trade ” it must be acknowledged would have been in the highest degree undesirable. The decision of the Cabinet to remove the conduct of the enquiry from the sphere of politics'or from the debatable ground of Prohibition or non-Prohibition 'cannot be too highly commended After making the most minute enquiry into the whole of the circumstances, we have no hesitation in saving that, so far as Ministers and Commissioner Tunbridge were concorned, the neoeggary fletailg were arranged before the House met on Tuesday afternoon. The fact that Mr Fraser, the member for Wakatipu, brought up a question of privilege so soon as the resumed its sitting barred the way to any other business. Otherwise, the Premier would have made the Ministerial statement which was delivered later in the day.

Mr T. E. Taylor sent a letter—a copy of which will be found in another column—to the Premier on Tuesday afternoon. That latter, it will be seen, was received at the hour of 5 pm-, with the ink scarcely dry upon its pages. An answer was at once despatched, the contents of which will be found elsewhere. The letter sent to the Premier has been published locally, and it is understood that it has also been telegraphed to other parts of the colony j but, strangely enough, the same publicity was denied to the letter of the Premier,and anendPavOHF bag been made to convince the public that it was the Jotter of Mr Taylor which forced the hand of the leader of the Government, It is this political dishonesty which has disgusted so many people and rendered futile the efforts of the Opposition as ngainst its opponents. Either Mr Taylor’s letter should not hare been published by itself or the remarks based upon its content? should have been withheld. As the matter stands, it must be admitted that those who have acted so hastily were misled, or that they adopted a questionable line of policy to enable th(WJ to mislead—if only for twelve hours —the people of the colony. It has been said that if a falsehood obtains a start of twelve hours it is impossible to overtake it, and we feel impelled to the conclusion that it was with this end in yiew that Mr Taylor’s letter was made use of. There •is but, one course open to the latter gentleman, and that is to at once disavow any intention to mislead the'public, any desire to suppress the Premier’s letter j or to take the consequences of what construction the public may put upon his conduct in volunteering his own letter for publication while withholding, the reply made to, it by the Premier. ' ■ ' - •