COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3698, 27 January 1925, Page 15

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.

ATTORN’EY-GENEKAL AND CHIEF JUSIICK. WELLINGTON. January 23. Copies of correspondence between the Attorney-general and tho Chief Justice on the subject of two proposed commissions have been handed to tho press. The first letter, addressed to tho Chief Justice, is a 3 tollows: I have the honour to request your consideration of the proposal that a Judge of the Supreme Court should sit either alone or as a president of three upon -two commissions under ‘The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1503.’ On a previous occasion you intimated to me your view that a Judge of the Supreme Court should not be asked to sit upon a commission where the conduct of the Government is called into question, and in both the proposed commissions to which I am about to refer it is clear that the conduct of the executive would be a cardinal matter in the intended inquiry. The first proposed commission is one in which the committee of the House of Representatives has recommended that a Judge of the Supreme Court be asked to 3 it. The matter involved is a complaint by the YVoolston Tanneries Company, established near Christchurch, that the company suffered injury by reason of a number of unfair acts of the Executive, one of such acts being the removal of the embargo which had been placed during the war upon the export of hides from New Zealand. The assertions of the petitioners are practically that certain officers of the Government were influenced by hostility to- the company in the advice they gave the Government. “Another complaint is that the removal of the embargo wag contrary to the spirit of a request that had been made to the company (by the Board of Trade) to continue its operations of tanning on the assumption that the embargo on the export would continue.

“Incidentally there are many suggestions of malevolence on the part of the Hon. Mr Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture), for its in charge of the departments whose acs are complained of. “The second proposed, commission is an inquiry into certain charges made by Mr YV. D. Lysnar, M.P. for Gisborne, against the Government, and especially against Mr Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture), for it s conduct in having given assent to a sale by the National Bank of New Zealand, as mortgagees, of certain meat works in Poverty Bay to Messrs Vestey Bros. This is alleged to have given facilities for operations of meat trusts in contravention ot statements made by the Government that they were opposed to such trusts. Incidentally there are serious charges against Mr D. Jones (chairman of tho Control Board), consequent on the consent of the Meat Control Board having been given to the same transaction.

“As it is impossible for me to suggest that the appointment of a judge as commissioner, whether alone or as president in either commission, would not necessarily involve his inquiry into and report upon the conduct and motives of the executive as well as the executive officers, I desire before making any request to your Honor that a judge or judges should be at liberty to accept appointment on either commission to inquire whether your Honor’s previously noted objection is still in force. It would (I submit) be of advantage for Ihe future as well as for the present that some clear indication should he given by yourself and by members of the Bench of their view on the point.— (Signed) F. H. Bell, Attorney-General.” To this the Chief Justice replied as follows :

“I have consulted their Honors. the judges, in reference to your suggestion that one of them should act as chairman of one or two commissions, one regarding a dispute about a tannery in Canterbury, which dispute has been already been before the parliamentary committee, and the other regarding the treatment of what is termed a meat trust. If the disputants have a legal claim the courts are open to them. I assume that neither of the disputes can come before the courts. This being so it seems to me plain that (he disputes bear a political aspect, and (hat the conduct of the Ministers and tho members of Parliament may be involved. This being so, I am of opinion that it would be exceedingly inconvenient for such disputes to be dealt with by judicial officers. Parliament or specially appointed citizens should in my opinion be the tribunal that should deal with the question. I have consulted the judges, and have heard from all but one, and find they are of my opinion, though they are ever desirous of assisting in any way they legitimately can to settle differences amongst our people. I hope, therefore, that on further consideration no request will be made for them to intervene in any way in such disputes.—(Signed) Robert: Stout.” The Attorney-General responded to-day as follows: —

“I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th inst. in reply to mine of December 30 last dealing with certain proposals that a judge of the Supreme Court be invited to preside on commissions to be issued under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1908, where the subject matter of inquiry involves the conduct of the Government or its executive officers. I beg leave to expres-s thanks to the Government, to yourself, and members of the Supreme Court Bench for the consideration given to my letter, and to inform your Honor that the Government will act in accordance with the view expressed in your letter.—(Signed) F. 11. I). Bell, Attorney-General.”