SECRET COMMISSIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2761, 13 February 1907, Page 64

SECRET COMMISSIONS.

VIEWS OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

WELLINGTON, February 6.

Interviewed by the Post with reference to the presentment of the grand jury protesting against secret commissions in business, the Attorney-general said ho was aware of the evidence upon which the jury based its presentment, and it was very eignificant that a grand jury of such representative men in the city's trade and commerce should J>ave felt compelled to state so plainly its belief with regard to tho secret commission system. He agreed that 6uch a system was demoralising to the community, and that it could not be. regarded as honest. The secret commission had come to be considered as the custom of the trade in the Old Country, and there was good reason for believing that tho came condition of things existed in NewZealand. So great an evil had it become in Great Britain that a etrong agitation v.as worked up against it, and there was no> doubt that it was partly due to the vigorous crusade carried on by the late Chief Justice of England (Lord Russell, of Killowen) that the Prevention of Corruption Act waa passed. This act, which was more drastic- than any of our legislation in New Zealand, came into force in England in August last. The act provides for tho criminal prosecution at the instance of tha Attorney-general of any person who corruptly accepts or agrees to accept, anything in the nature of a secret commission. All 1 parties are liable to criminal prosecution, whether the principal, agent, or other person, w\jo knowingly were parties to such a transaction as an inducement for getting" business. False or erroneous statements in accounts, meant as a means of manipulating accounts to deceive the principals, were also provided for in the act. Convicted parties were liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. It would be seen, said the Attorney-general, that the provisions of the act gave the widest powers to the criminal law to punish in such cases as the Wellington Grand Jury had protested against. If, on further inquiry, the presentment of the jury was justified, he (Dr Findlay) saw no reason why the English Prevention of Corruption Act, or something on the lines of that measure, should not be passed in New Zealand. It was quite clear if the jury's protest was warranted, that something must be done by Parliament to chock the system, which: can on no principle of fair business dealing be justified. At a mooting of the Chamber of Commerce Mr Nathan said it was a great pity that the name of the firm concerned in th« jury's reference was not given. The chamber should follow this thing up, and see that the legis'ation necessary to check it was pased. A resolution was passed directing the council of the chamber to consider the matter and make representations to tho Government.