The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1915. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9042, 13 May 1915, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1915. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

If Mr Massoy had previously failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation in which the result of the Bay of Islands election petition has placed him, his indifference must have been rudely disturbed by the leading article appearing in our evening contemporary, on Tuesday last under the heading of “Disreputable Politics.” The writer of that article obviously wrote more in sorrow than in anger, as of a friend who had fallen from his pedestal of purity—raised by pious vows to that high eminence—who had falsified his own professions of immaculate rectitude, and had sought to employ for his own Ministerial advantage the very means he had erstwhile so loudly and bitterly condemned. The erring idol falls much more heavily than the common miscreant man. But it must be remembered, in justice to Mr Massey, that we have not yet heard his version of the offer of this bribe of office. According to the fundamental principles of fair play, no man should be condemned unheard—-audi alteram partem. Mr Massey may he able to put an entirely different complexion upon this ugly business which has resulted go disastrously for Mr Vernon Reed s pditical existence. It is true Mr Wilkinson swore that he was offered a seat in the Legislative Council if he would retire from the contest to ensure Mr Heed’s return. It is true Mr Reed swore that Mr Massey saw him in Auckland a few days after the conference of “ Reform ” delegates had rejected Mr Reed in favour of Mr Wilkinson, and that the Prime Minister then said ; that ho had not got a definite reply from Wilkinson as to his offer of a seat in. the Legislative Council. It is true Mr Reed also swore that Mr Massey asked him to get a certain “ Reformer ” (a Mr Johnston) to obtain a direct reply from Mr Wilkinson one way or other as to whether he would accept this bribe. It is true Mr Wilkinson swore that a definite offer of Legislative Council appointment was made to him • by Mr Johnston if he would retire in Mr Reed’s favour. It is true Ms/ Reed swore positively that he told Mr Johnston that the message containing this offer to Mr Wilkinson came from Mr Massey, and that he delivered to Mr Johnston the exact message Mr Massey asked him to deliver. That in effect the bribe offered was not his, and did not originate with him, Mr Reed, but with Mr Massey himself. It is true both Mr Wilkinson and Mr Reed gave their evidence in fair obvious friendliness to Mr Massey, and the judges expressly commended the manner in which this evidence was given. They plainly believed it, and if it is true we would not use harsh expressions to describe Mr Massey’s plight. But Mr Massey has not yet been heard. He was not a witness'. He was not in attendance at the court to explain anything. The evidence we have referred to may bo incorrect. Mr Massey may be as innocent of the imputed bribery as an unborn babe. But Mr Massey must feel that if he is to escape general censure he must avail himself of the most effective, direct and conclusive means of establishing his innocence. He owes this to himself personally. He owes it to his party. He owes it to Parliament. He owes it to the people. He owes it to public purity, of which he has so long proclaimed himself the inviolate palladium. And what is the most effective means for this purpose? Can there be any doubt? Let Mr Massey arrange with some personal friend to lay an indictment against him under the Legislature Act, 1908, charging the commission of the offence' for which Mr Reed has been banished from public life and for twelve months declared disqualified for again attempting to enter it. The indictment, we understand, would be heard in the Supreme Court before a judge and a jury of twelve. On the hearing of this indictment, Mr Massey could give evidence on oath, and give his version of the offer and interviews of which Mr Wilkinson and Mr Reed spoke on oath in court at Kaikohe. Mr Massey might thus be able to show that no offer of any kind was made to Mr Wilkinson, or. if there was, then that the judges wore wrong, the witnesses were wrong, and that the offer to Mr Wilkinson was untainted by the least thought of Mr Reed’s winning the Bay of Islands seat. We are the more disposed to admit that there must be

some mistake somewhere over this unhappy business from the fact that in Mr Massey’s presence in the House on the Ist July last Mr Allen, whoso political accuracy is proverbial, expressly denied that any offer of a seat m the Legislative Council had ever been made to Mr Wilkinson. As this was only a few weeks after the date on which Mr Reed swore he had been asked by Mr Massey to ascertain from Mr Wilkinson whether he would accept the seat, already offered him by Mr Massey, it is clear that someone has blundered. Let Mr Massey clear himself and the whole matter up m the Supreme Court as we have suggested.