The N.Z. Times MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1908. CORRUPTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6487, 6 April 1908, Page 4

The N.Z. Times

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1908. CORRUPTION

vm which is ncwarokirai tbs 11 wbuuikivmi auwpßßimirv,” nirmnsnp 1845.

A charge of corruption has been made against certain members of the Oommonwealth Legislature, the . gist of which is that some importers, notably tho Standard Oil Trust, have bribed them to vote for some item of the tariff favourable to tho importer. These are the methods of America, that country so often held up as superior in everything that constitutes a nation of freemen. Whether the Standard Oil Trust has done this thing in Melbourne, it is certain that many similar institutions have done it in America. That, of course, does not prove that tho aooused of Melbourne are guilty. It only proves that there are men willing to impute to them the disaster which comes to honesty on the 'application of the methods of America. In America such a charge would make but little impression, for if tho practice of bribery is there frequent, the practice of false insinuation is even more so.

On this point the immortal story of Mark Twain is conclusive: the story of how ho (Twain), an inoffensive citizen, remarkable for careful obedience to the Ton Commandments and tho million maxims of the estimable Mrs Grundy, had but to stand for some public office to be branded as a criminal off the worst sort in general, and in particular as a "body-snatcher,” one of those ghouls who rob graves for tho benefit of the anatomical schools of their States. There was no proof whatever, yet the unhappy victim was convicted by the simple process of what in Shakespeare is known as “ damnable iteration."

In Near Zealand wo have not any of tho corruption known in America. This has been established by the failure of many attempts to make good intemperate declarations of somebody elso’s guilt- But we have a great deal

of the :t iteration ” so forcibly described in the picturesque words of the national bard. For example, we havo tho desperate attempt to fasten municipal dishonesty on one of tho candidates for the Mayoralty, which has lately broken down in the most signal fashion.

Unfortunately, Mr Deakin has not taken in the whole lesson of the most famous of the Dominion incidents. The lesson of the “ voucher” taught not only that there’was nothing in the charge from first to last, but also that the proper tribunal for the investigation of such a charge is an independent tribunal. A Select Committee of either House of Parliament is not an independent tribunal. It is such a tribunal that Mr Deakin has appealed to, and he has weakened the case for tho defence by stating his opinion in favour of the accused. Hero we have the difference between tho late Mr Soddon and the present Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The man who is gone appealed outside the political field, tho man who is with us stays within the political field.

In the former case the result was the disappearance of the charge and the establishment of a mark on the shoulder of the tc voucher ” man that is ineradicable for all time. In the later the tribunal will form tho basis of jierpetual appeals, confusion of issues and general unsatisfactoriness, with an ultimate undeserved flavour of political dishonesty somewhere, not proven hut of broad, insinuatory strength. If Mr Deakin were wise, he would hale all concerned before an independent tribunal, and force them tj speak in the full flare of publicity.