LAND AND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2924, 30 March 1910, Page 64

LAND AND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.

PRESS CRITICISM. (Fbom Ouk Li'wn Cohrespondent.) WELLINGTON, March 28. " The latest ancuneements concerning the case of Mr P Heyes, Land Tax Commissioner and Valuer-general, are'.' (says the Dominion editorally) " quite aa puzzling as the attitude of the Prima Minister has been throughout this mysterious affair. We are told now after months of waiting that a board of Inquiry under the Civil Service Act is to be set' up to investigate various charges made against Mi Heyes, and, most remarkable of all, Mr Heyes is still on leave. Tha public is hardly likely to have forgotten the circumstances under which Mr Heyes nearly four months ago was placed on leave on full pay. As the result of allegations made by an officer or officers of the department, two judges of ths Supreme Court were appointed to conduct a secret investigation of certain transactions in the I>aoid and Income Tax Department. The Prime Minister refused to disclose the nature of the charges made or to make known the findings of the secret tribunal, declaring his intention to treat the judges' report as confidential. The matter was discussed in Parliament, and Sir " JosepJ Ward eventually an-, nounced that, as a result of the inquiry, test cases would be taken to the lawcourts, and the control of the affairs of the department would for the time being be taken out of the hands of Mr Heyes, who would be granted leave of absence. This was the position four months ago. The public mind was much perturbed by the rumours in circulation, and the mystery with which the Prime Minister surrounded the affair added to the general feeling of uneasiness. Everybody felt that the sooner any doubts which might exist were cleared up the better. The matter, however, has been allowed to drag along all these months regardless of the feelings of Mr Heyes or of the concern of the public as to what has been happening in connection with 'the Tax Department." After -referring to the Bowron case and the constitution of the Board of Inquiry, the article continues: " We have nothing to say regarding the ability and integrity of the gentlemen im question. AM three occupy high and responsible positions, arad we have no doubt they are fair-minded men. But is it fair to them vo place them in the position in which they have been placed? Is it fair to place anyone dependent on the Government of the day in that position? Moreover, the Prime Minister has laid! great stress on the necessity for secrecy in connectior with the business of 'ths Land and Jncome Tax Department. He has seen danger in disclosing even the nature of the charges made. He appointed two Supreme Court judges to conduct the original 'nvestigation in order, that the public should have every eonfL. dence that the private affairs of individuals having business with the Lan£ and Income Tax Departmen would be in safe keeping. And now he makes a complete change of front. Already he has admitted to this confidential depart-! ment the head of one outside who has acted during the absence of Mtf Heyes, and now three more are to be introduced. Altogether the position is most unsatisfactory. In the first place the inquiry is 'a matter of common justice to all concerned, and in the public interest should have been held months ago and whoever 's to blame called to account, and, secondly, it should have been condiicted by a tribunal absolutely independent of Ministerial influence." The Post also adversely criticises .be action of the Government in this matter.